MADE
POSSIBLE
WITH
SUPPORT
FROM
The
Kohala
Center,
The
University
of
Michigan
|
School
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment,
and
The
Frederick
A.
and
Barbara
M.
Erb
Institute
for
Global
Sustainable
Enterprise
at
the
University
of
Michigan

i
|
Page

ABSTRACT

Residents
of
Hawai`i
Island
pay
some
of
the
highest
rates
for
electricity
and
petroleum
products
among
residents
of
the
United
States.
Moreover,
the
islands
of
the
Hawaiian
archipelago
rely
almost
entirely
on
imported
petroleum
fuels
for
both
transportation
and
energy
generation.
Though
Hawai`i
Island
has
integrated
more
renewable
energy
onto
its
electrical
grid
than
anywhere
else
in
the
U.S.,
the
reliance
on
fossil
fuel
remains
high
because
more
than
half
the
energy
demand
of
the
island
can
be
attributed
to
transportation.
Traditionally
mass
transit
systems
can
be
used
to
increase
energy
efficiency,
as
well
as
energy
sustainability
of
a
transportation
system;
as
a
result
the
University
of
Michigan
team
was
engaged
by
The
Kohala
Center
to
examine
and
analyze
the
public
transit
system
of
Hawai`i
Island
for
potential
improvements.

The
primary
objective
of
the
project
is
to
develop
a
set
of
recommendations
for
the
County
of
Hawai`i
focused
on
high-­?impact
solutions
to
reduce
fossil
fuel
use
in
the
island?s
ground
transportation
system,
while
improving
accessibility
and
lowering
travel
times
for
commuters.
Our
team
completed
initial
research
to
gain
a
background
on
Hawai`i
and
its
energy
and
transit
challenges,
completed
data
collection
and
analysis
through
a
research
trip
to
Hawai`i,
and
designed
a
set
of
recommendations
for
optimizing
the
current
system,
as
well
as
potential
alternatives
that
include
the
establishment
of
carpooling
and
ride-­?sharing
networks
that
would
employ
new
business
models
to
help
solve
some
additional
transit
issues.

The
Need
for
Ridesharing
Networks
in
Hawai`i
County
.....................................................................
72
Best
Practices
for
Ridesharing
Networks
...........................................................................................
73
Considerations
for
Establishing
a
Rideshare
Network
on
Hawai`i
Island
..........................................
75

Residents
of
Hawai`i
Island
pay
some
of
the
highest
rates
for
electricity
and
petroleum
products
among
residents
of
the
United
States.

1

Moreover,
the
islands
of
the
Hawaiian
archipelago
rely
almost
entirely

on
imported
petroleum
fuels
for
both
transportation
and
energy
generation.

2

Though
Hawai`i
Island
has

integrated
more
renewable
energy
onto
its
electrical
grid
than
anywhere
else
in
the
U.S.,

3

the
reliance

on
fossil
fuel
remains
high
because
more
than
half
the
energy
demand
of
the
island
can
be
attributed
to
transportation.

4

Traditionally
mass
transit
systems
can
be
used
to
increase
energy
efficiency,
as
well
as

energy
sustainability;
as
a
result
we
have
designed
this
project
to
explore
the
need
for
improvements
to
this
system.
We
will
develop
suggestions
for
optimizing
the
current
system,
as
well
as
potential
alternatives
that
include
the
establishment
of
carpooling
and
ridesharing
networks
that
would
decrease
the
number
of
private
vehicles
used
and
thus
fuel
consumption.

The
University
of
Michigan
team
was
engaged
by
The
Kohala
Center
to
examine
and
analyze
the
public
transit
system
of
Hawai`i
Island.
The
primary
objective
of
the
project
is
to
develop
a
set
of
recommendations
for
public
and
private
investments
focused
on
high-­?impact
solutions
to
reduce
fossil
fuel
use
in
the
island?s
ground
transportation
system,
while
improving
accessibility
and
lowering
travel
times
for
commuters.

HAWAI`I
ISLAND
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE

On
Hawai`i
Island
the
vast
majority
of
residents
(69%)
choose
to
commute
alone
via
personal
vehicles
like
cars,
trucks
and
vans,
while
only
2%
of
commuters
choose
public
transit
to
get
to
work.

5

The

remainder
of
the
workforce
either
carpools
to
work
or
works
from
home.

6

Currently,
commuters
are
served
by
a
few
major
two-­?lane
highways
that
transport
residents
from
one
side
of
the
island
to
the
other.
Hawai`i
Belt
Road
(Highway
19)
is
a
major
route
from
Hilo
to
Kailua-­?Kona
and
it
takes
a
driver
2
hours
and
approximately
95
miles.

7

This
is
the
road

preferred
by
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
because
the
population
lives
along
this
road
making
pick-­?ups
ideal.

8

The
other
option
for
this
trip
is
the
newly
opened
Daniel
K.
Inouye
Highway
passing
between
Mauna
Kea
and
Mauna
Loa
and
connecting
the
existing
Saddle
Road
(Highway
200)
to
Mamalahoa
Highway.

9

This
route

starting
in
Hilo
and
ending
in
Kona
is
about
77
miles
long
and
will
take
drivers
1
hour
and
38
minutes
to
traverse.

10

HAWAI`I
ISLAND

Figure
1-­?1:
Road
Map
of
Hawai`i
Island

5|

P a g e

COMMUTING
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

THE
CHALLENGES
OF
TRANSIT

The
population
of
Hawai`i
Island
is
highly
dispersed
and
rural,
making
efficient
transportation
and
particularly
public
transit
challenging.
Those
that
commute
alone
using
their
personal
vehicles
must
cover
vast
distances
on
a
daily
basis
and
are
often
paying
a
premium
for
fossil
fuels.
Transit
service
providers
also
face
a
number
of
challenges
in
delivering
high
quality,
convenient
and
cost-­?effective
transit
options
for
their
clientele.
They
are
asked
to
serve
a
large
area
with
a
dispersed
population
with
a
limited
budget.
Providers
must
optimize
their
systems
to
cover
long
distances
and
occasionally
difficult
terrain.

11

They
must
rely
on
a
variety
of
fleet
vehicles,
causing
the
need
for
more
administrative

capacity,
operational
and
maintenance
knowledge
and
general
coordination.

CHARACTERISTICS
OF
HAWAI`I
COUNTY
COMMUTERS

As
mentioned
previously
Hawai`i
Island
residents
primarily
choose
to
commute
to
work
by
personal
automobile
(cars,
trucks
and
vans).
While
most
commute
alone,
about
15%
participate
in
carpooling
to
get
to
work.
Compared
to
the
United
States
as
a
whole,
carpooling
is
highly
successful
on
Hawai`i
Island.
Less
than
2%
of
the
population
takes
public
transit
to
get
to
work,
but
at
the
same
time
that
is
almost
three
times
the
national
average
for
other
rural
areas.

Table
1-­?1:
Modes
of
Commuting

United

States

Rural

Hawai'i
County

Maui
County

Mode
Used

Commuting

alone

76.4%

81.4%

72.7%

68.4%

Carpooling

9.8%

9.9%

14.5%

14,9%

Public
Transit

5.0%

0.6%

1.7%

2.3%

Other

8.8%

8.1%

11.1%

14.9%

Data from American Community Survey

The
median
income
in
Hawai`i
County
is
slightly
below
the
rest
of
the
United
States
and
other
rural
populations.
Figure
1-­?2
shows
that
those
who
commuted
alone
using
their
own
personal
vehicle
on
the
whole
earned
more
than
those
who
carpooled
or
used
public
transit.
Interestingly,
in
Hawai`i
County
public
transit
commuters
had
a
much
lower
median
earnings
level.
They
only
earned
$16k,
while
those
that
commuted
alone
or
via
carpool
earned
almost
twice
that
amount.
This
suggests
that
lower
income
commuters,
who
do
not
have
access
to
or
cannot
afford
a
personal
vehicle,
predominantly
use
the
public
transit
system
on
Hawai`i
Island.

6|

P a g e

Figure
1-­?2

The
Figure
1-­?3
shows
average
commute
lengths
for
the
different
types
of
Hawai?i
Island
commuters..
Among
all
the
residents
of
the
island,
the
average
time
it
takes
to
commute
to
work
is
between
25
and
30
minutes,
which
is
similar
to
the
national
average.
Public
transit
commutes
in
the
United
States
tend
to
be
longer
than
solo
and
carpool
commutes
with
the
average
of
48
minutes;
public
transit
commutes
on
Hawai`i
Island
are
substantially
longer
at
68
minutes.
In
fact,
more
than
50%
of
public
transit
commuters
on
the
island
have
a
commute
of
60
minutes
or
longer.

Figure
1-­?3

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling

Public
Transit

United
States

$32,417

$35,132

$26,013

$30,950

Rural

$31,653

$32,287

$27,690

$31,920

Hawai'i
County

$29,492

$30,393

$27,714

$16,343

$-­?

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

Ear

nings

Per

Cap

ita

Hawai'i
County
Median
Earning

-­?

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling
Public
Transit

Hawai'i
County
Commute
Length

60
or
more
minutes

45
to
59
minutes

30
to
44
minutes

20
to
29
minutes

10
to
19
minutes

Less
than
10
minutes

Mean
travel
lme
to
work

(minutes)

7|

P a g e

HAWAI`I
COUNTY
MASS
TRANSIT
AGENCY

The
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
began
collecting
ridership
data
again
in
2005
and
currently
delivers
public
transportation
with
its
Hele-­?On
bus
service
and
shared
taxi
program.

12

The
Hele-­?On
bus

offers
16
route
options
that
range
from
intra-­?city
(i.e.
Kona
and
Hilo)
to
inter-­?city
(i.e.
Hilo
to
Waimea)
to
trans-­?island
(i.e.
Hilo
to
Kohala
resorts).
The
fare
for
riding
the
bus
has
recently
increased
(as
of
July
1,
2013)
from
$1.00
to
$2.00
per
ride
and
from
free
to
$1.00
for
students,
disabled
individuals
and
seniors.

13

The
shared
taxi
program
offers
door-­?to-­?door
taxi
service
within
Hilo
and
Kona
for
between

$2.00-­?3.00
for
trips
fewer
than
four
miles
and
between
$6.00-­?9.00
for
trips
fewer
than
nine
miles.
The
agency
is
funded
by
money
from
the
local
and
federal
governments,
but
receives
no
state
funding
for
their
operations.

14

Figure
1-­?4

Ridership
has
been
gradually
increasing
since
the
service
began.
According
to
the
most
recent
available
Comprehensive
Fiscal
Report
produced
by
Hawai`i
County
for
the
Fiscal
Year
ending
on
June
30,
2011,
the
ridership
surpassed
1
million
passengers
in
2010
and
reached
approximately
1.15
million
in
2011.

15

As
of
2011,
the
agency
owned
a
fleet
of
56
vehicles
to
serve
these
riders.

16

MAPPING
TRANSIT
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

In
the
spatial
analysis
section,
we
first
mapped
current
bus
routes
and
the
spatial
distribution
of
population
density,
work
hubs
and
recreational
hubs.
Next,
we
compared
the
transit
needs
(implied
by
the
spatial
distribution
maps)
around
Hawai`i
Island
with
current
bus
route
coverage
to
develop
a
preliminary
understanding
about
whether
the
current
mass
transit
system
reaches
enough
riders
while
evaluating
the
possibilities
of
potential
improvements.

Not
surprisingly,
these
maps
we
created
show
that
population,
work
hubs
and
recreational
hubs
of
Hawaii
Island
are
clustered
around
the
perimeter
of
the
island
at
major
towns
including
Hilo,
Keaau,
Mountain
View,
Pahoa,
Ocean
View,
Kealakekua,
Keauhou,
Kailua-­?Kona,
Waikoloa,
Waimea
and
Hawi.
Work
hubs
are
especially
clustered
around
Hilo
and
Kailua-­?Kona.
Based
on
our
analysis
of
the
current

-­?

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Mi

llions

of

Passengers

Year

Hawaii
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
Ridership

8|

P a g e

public
transit
system
we
have
determined
that
Hilo
and
Kailua-­?Kona
are
two
of
the
most-­?served
areas
in
terms
of
routes
passing
through
or
within,
with
four
routes
within
Hilo,
six
routes
to
or
from
Hilo
and
four
routes
to
or
from
Kailua-­?Kona.

Our
results
show
that
two
or
more
bus
routes
serve
most
of
the
works
hubs,
recreation
hubs,
and
population
clusters.
However,
Mountain
View,
Pahoa
and
Pahala
are
only
served
by
one
bus
route.
Moreover,
Mauna
Kea
State
Park,
a
very
popular
attraction,
is
completely
out
of
bus
service
at
this
point
because
it
is
on
Saddle
Road,
which
lacks
bus
routes.
Hilo
International
and
Kona
International
Airport,
the
major
airports
on
the
island,
also
have
limited
bus
service.

This
preliminary
analysis
suggests
that
the
Mass
Transit
Authority
may
be
able
to
streamline
the
Hele-­?On
bus
system
by
identifying
redundancies
or
unnecessary
overlap
in
the
current
routing
and
scheduling
system.

Figure
1-­?5

9|

P a g e

MAUI
COUNTY
PUBLIC
TRANSIT

Of
the
Hawai`ian
Islands,
Maui
County
is
most
similar
to
Hawai`i
County
due
to
their
relatively
rural
settings.
Because
of
these
similarities
we
completed
a
case
study
of
the
bus
system
on
Maui.
Investigating
the
origins
of
the
Maui
bus
system,
its
current
status,
and
its
plans
for
future
improvements
can
provide
some
useful
information
for
Hele-­?On.
Maui?s
routes
and
schedules
were
initially
developed
based
on
an
objective
scoring
system,
and
today
service
expansion
is
generally
driven
by
demand
from
the
public.
Maui
currently
uses
Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)
to
a
much
greater
extent
than
Hele-­?On
does.
This
has
allowed
Maui
to
develop
route
maps
and
schedules
that
are
visually
appealing
and
clear
(see
the
figure
below).
Additionally,
Maui
uses
Google
Transit
to
publish
information
about
their
services,
and
the
process
for
collaborating
with
Google
was
not
difficult
at
all.
While
other
technological
solutions
are
not
currently
used
by
Maui,
they
are
looking
into
investing
in
Global
Positioning
Systems
(GPS),
as
well
as
a
system
that
can
automatically
track
ridership.
The
Maui
system?s
budget
is
over
double
that
of
Hele-­?On,
as
is
its
ridership.
While
Hawai?i
Island?s
ability
to
immediately
offer
all
of
the
same
services
that
Maui
offers
in
these
areas
is
not
feasible,
collaborating
with
Maui
Transit
officials
and
looking
into
incorporating
some
of
their
innovations
offers
the
best
path
forward
and
could
provide
benefits
to
the
residents
of
Hawai`i
Island.

Figure
1-­?6:
Map
of
Maui
Transit

From
http://www.mauicounty.gov

10|

P a g e

THE
CASE
FOR
IMPROVING
THE
TRANSPORTATION
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

Transportation
on
Hawai`i
Island
is
complicated
and
presents
great
challenges.
There
is
rising
and
more
complex
demand
for
public
transit
service,
operational
costs
are
increasing,
and
resources
are
limited.
In
recent
years,
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
(MTA)
has
persistently
worked
towards
expanding
its
Hele-­?On
services
and
providing
residents
with
suitable
transportation
options
and
an
improved
experience.
However,
the
Agency
still
faces
many
challenges
to
expand
while
maintaining
high
quality
service.
At
the
same
time
the
Island?s
traffic
is
getting
worse,
fuel
expenses
are
a
huge
burden
and
vehicle
carbon
emissions
are
increasing,
as
many
people
commute
alone
in
their
personal
vehicles.

We
have
developed
a
set
of
recommendations
for
stakeholders
to
consider
when
working
to
mitigate
these
issues.
First,
we
will
focus
on
technology
investments
for
the
Hele-­?On
public
transit
system.
Then,
we
will
discuss
private
sector
investments
that
could
provide
alternative,
cost-­?effective
ways
to
commute
on
Hawai`i
Island.

OPTIMIZING
PUBLIC
TRANSIT
WITH
TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS

To
address
the
complexity
of
transportation
on
Hawai`i
Island
and
the
challenges
that
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
is
facing,
we
identified
two
overarching
areas
of
opportunity
that
can
facilitate
the
transition
to
a
more
economically,
socially
and
environmentally
sustainable
mass
transit
system
for
Hawai`i
Island.
The
following
graphic
introduces
these
two
areas,
the
different
segments
in
which
they
may
be
targeted,
and
the
potential
benefits
they
could
provide.
Subsequently,
we
identified
key
technologies
that
can
improve
these
segments
when
implemented.

Figure
1-­?7:
Areas
of
Opportunity

11|

P a g e

There
are
many
available
technologies
for
improved
transportation
systems
used
worldwide.
After
an
extensive
analysis
of
available
technology
options,
we
identified
the
following
as
the
most
beneficial
for
the
Hele-­?On
transit
system:

and
driver
performance.
It
can
also
increase
accountability
of
drivers.

4. Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDT)-­?
to
make
the
integration
of
technology
systems
easier
and
more

seamless,
and
to
maintain
digital
records
of
all
operations.

5. Real
Time
Passenger
Information
(RTPI)-­?
to
provide
better
predictability,
reliability
and
service

to
passengers
and
improve
their
overall
experience
to
increase
ridership.

ANALYSIS
OF
POTENTIAL
VENDORS

As
in
any
growing
market,
there
are
multiple
companies
offering
products
and
services
for
transportation
management
or
optimization
purposes.
We
performed
extensive
research
on
existing
companies
and
their
offerings.
This
analysis
can
serve
as
a
tool
for
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
to
determine
which
company
might
best
fit
Hele-­?On?s
requirements,
while
staying
within
the
County?s
budget
or
making
the
case
for
extra
funding
to
be
raised
via
public
or
private
investment.
Aside
from
economic
considerations,
an
ideal
vendor
should
be
able
to
provide
multiple
items
from
the
?Key
Technologies
for
Hele-­?On?
listed
above
and
present
customizable
solutions.
Additional
value
will
come
from
firms
with
products
designed
specifically
for
public
transportation
systems
and
previous
experience
with
rural
or
island-­?based
clients.

Figure
1-­?8:
Potential
Companies
and
Their
Services

Company

Services

Au

to

m

at

ed

Pa

sse

ng

er

Co

un

tin

g

(A

PC)

Ro

ut

in

g
a

nd

Fl

ee

t

Ef

fic

ie

nc

y

Op

tim

iza

tio

n

Op

er

at

or

a

nd

V

eh

icl

e

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

Re

al

-­?ti

m

e

Pa

sse

ng

er

In

fo

rm

at

io

n

(R

TPI)

M

ob

ile

D

at

a
T

er

m

in

al

s

(M

DT

)

Ha

s
S

pe

cif

ic

Se

rv

ice

fo

r

Pu

bl

ic

Tr

an

sp

or

t?

Ha

s
w

or

ke

d

on

R

ur

al

o

r

Isl

an

d

Pr

oj

ec

ts

Actsoft

x

x

NextBus

x

x

Syncromatics

x

x

x

x

x

Teletrac

x

x

x

x

x

Trapeze

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TSO
Mobile

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

12|

P a g e

As
shown
in
the
figure
above,
the
companies
reviewed
in
this
research
provide
a
wide
array
of
services,
and
finding
the
best
option
for
Hele-­?On
to
implement
will
depend
on
the
costs
of
each
and
the
availability
of
resources
in
the
County
of
Hawai`i.
After
contacting
and
reviewing
these
companies,
we
determined
that
TSO
Mobile
offers
the
full
range
of
products
and
services
the
County
may
consider
and
has
experience
working
or
rural
systems
and
in
islands.
It
would
therefore
be
the
best
option
to
work
with,
even
though
the
investment
required
is
higher.

RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
IMPLEMENTING
TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS

We
have
identified
three
different
stages
of
activities
and
investments
for
the
County
to
consider.
There
are
some
easy
and
low-­?cost
solutions
that
we
recommend
should
be
implemented
right
away,
and
some
pricier
but
more
impactful
solutions
for
which
additional
funds
must
be
procured.

IMMEDIATE
SHORT
TERM

!

Google
Transit:
Low
cost
option
with
easy
and
fast
implementation
that
can
help
passengers
identify
ideal
routes,
schedules,
and
connections.
It
will
be
necessary
to
develop
a
communication
strategy
to
let
users
know
of
its
availability
once
it
is
in
place.

!

Website
enhancements
for
easier
navigation.

!

Develop
clear
route
schedules
and
maps
that
can
be
seen
on
website
without
the
need
to
download
the
file.

We
recommend
that
Hawai`i
County
consider
partnering
with
private
enterprises
for
both
rideshare
and
vanpool.
As
fuel
costs
increase
and
government
funding
for
transportation
becomes
more
uncertain,
there
will
be
a
shifting
of
priorities
at
the
federal
and
state
level.
The
time
for
action
is
now:
energy
efficiency
and
peer-­?to-­?peer
ridesharing
have
come
to
the
forefront
of
transportation
energy
innovations
and
this
emergence
has
not
gone
unnoticed
at
the
state
level.
Private
solutions
in
vanpool
and
rideshare
could
reduce
the
burden
on
the
Mass
Transit
Agency,
while
providing
cost-­?effective
realized
savings
for
both
short-­?
and
long-­?
distance
commuters.

RIDESHARE
NETWORKS

Peer-­?to-­?peer
ridesharing
occurs
when
passengers
use
mobile
applications
and
GPS
tracking
to
?find?
rides.
Ridesharing
is
increasingly
popular
at
universities
among
both
students
and
faculty,
as
well
as
among
middle-­?income
commuters
who
would
otherwise
commute
alone.

13|

P a g e

Despite
its
popularity,
we
are
skeptical
about
government
incentives
and
subsidies
like
the
Commuter
Tax
Benefits
Program,
the
Guaranteed
Ride
Home
Program
(GRHP)
and
Job
Access
Reverse
Commute
program
(JARC);
these
programs
may
not
necessarily
do
an
effective
job
of
enticing
ridesharing
due
to
state
priorities,
competition
with
more
populated
counties
which
spend
more
on
transportation,
the
actual
cost
of
allocating
money
to
the
island
for
these
programs,
and
the
general
lack
of
knowledge
of
said
opportunities.
We
are,
however,
hopeful
about
a
new
state
Car-­?Sharing
Vehicle
Surcharge
Tax
bill
in
the
works
and
the
2007
Energy
Efficient
Transportation
Strategy
Act,
whichrecognizes
and
sanctions
ridesharing
companies
as
legitimate
tax-­?paying
entities,
reducing
the
economic
uncertainty
of
these
markets
while
setting
a
standard
for
administration
and
oversight
which
can
act
as
catalyst
for
further
expansion.
It
is
expected
that
the
future
implementation
of
ridesharing
networks
will
be
complementary
to
mass
transit
ridership
rather
than
competitive;
ridesharing
exists
to
address
unmet
demand
for
lower-­?cost
travel
alternatives
for
middle-­?income
and
more
affluent
commuters.

In
spite
of
our
concerns
with
public
policy,
the
private
sector
is
robust
with
a
rapidly
expanding
market
with
increasing
private
investment.
As
we
mentioned
previously,
carpooling
is
already
very
popular
on
Hawai`i
Island
and
has
the
potential
to
save
participants
money,
as
well
as
limit
the
consumption
of
gasoline
and
the
release
of
carbon
into
the
atmosphere.
For
long-­?distance
commuting
a
driver
pays
an
average
of
$640/month
on
Hawai`i
Island.
That
cost
is
cut
almost
in
half
by
taking
on
one
additional
passenger
($332.80
returned
to
the
driver),
and
fully
recovered
with
additional
profit
by
taking
on
two
or
three
passengers
(making
$25.60
or
$358.40
per
month
respectively).
For
shorter
distances,
the
gains
are
more
modest
?
the
$40/month
average
cost
of
gasoline
for
a
single
commuter
is
recovered
with
the
driver
earning
an
additional
$1.60
for
two
more
riders
and
$22.40
for
three
more
riders
(see
Appendix
G
for
cost
calculations).

Figure
1-­?9

$(400.00)

$(200.00)

$-­?

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

City
Commute

Cross-­?Island
Commute

Mo

nthly

Cost

of

Travel

Distance
of
Commute

Carpool
Economics

Commute
Alone

Carpool
-­?
2
people

Carpool
-­?
3
people

Carpool
-­?
4
people

Carpool
Rider

Public
Transit

14|

P a g e

VANPOOL
NETWORKS

The
County
could
also
benefit
from
enhancing
private
vanpool
network
opportunities
for
all
residents,
where
users
pay
a
fee
to
cover
fuel
and
a
company
provides
vehicles.
Hawai`i
Island
is
an
ideal
place
to
utilize
this
type
of
service,
as
vanpools
are
particularly
effective
in
providing
long-­?distance
transportation
between
work
and
residential
hubs.
In
fact,
the
privatized
VRide
system
is
already
in
place,
but
underutilized.
There
are
still
inherent
tradeoffs:
the
system
may
poach
from
mass
transit,
taking
away
lower-­?income
commuters.
Additionally,
many
commuters
must
still
drive
to
reach
start
nodes.
Because
the
system
is
already
online,
the
County?s
largest
effort
should
be
focused
on
outreach
to
employers
and
commuters
and
educating
them
of
the
potential
subsidies
and
user
benefits
of
vanpool
commuting.
The
public
vanpool
system
(Vanpool
Hawai`i)
was
defunded
in
2011,
so
VRide
remains
the
only
viable
vanpool
option.

RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
ESTABLISHING
RIDESHARE
AND
VANPOOL
NETWORKS

There
are
three
major
steps
that
ensure
the
stability
of
vanpool
and
rideshare
private
networks
moving
forward:

!

Engage
Public
Agencies
in
Developing
Sustainable
Transportation
Goals:
Ensure
better
coordination
between
departments
to
secure
future
funding;
conduct
outreach
to
commuters
to
educate
them
of
various
options;
hire
staff
to
liaise
between
business
interests
and
commuters;
oversee
rideshare/vanpool
programs.

!

Support
the
Existing
Vanpool
System:
Immediately
encourage
users
to
sign
on
to
existing
vanpool
system.

!

Understand
Public
Needs:
Develop
a
population
survey
that
reaches
a
broad
sample
of
commuters
and
employers
gauging
user
preferences,
as
well
as
their
current
knowledge
of
available
and
developing
commuting
alternatives.

If
the
County
wishes
to
proceed
specifically
with
creating
a
rideshare
network
on
Hawai`i
Island,
three
options
for
moving
forward
include:

!

Send
out
a
Request
For
Proposal
(RFP)
to
existing
rideshare
Transportation
Network
Companies
(TNCs).
Traditionally,
TNC
expansion
in
the
past
has
been
limited
to
dense
urban
areas.
They
also
rely
more
on
private
investments
to
keep
them
afloat
and
expand
their
services
and
features.
Although
TNC?s
pay
for
themselves
(rather
than
through
public
agencies),
fierce
competition
both
intra-­?market
and
inter-­?market
(i.e.
taxi,
vanpools,
buses)
may
require
heavier
and
more
burdensome
regulation
by
the
already
understaffed
and
overworked
County.

!

Establish
a
public-­?private
partnership
(P3)
with
the
County
for
a
unique
regional
program.
In
this
situation
a
public
agency
subcontracts
to
a
third-­?party
vendor
(Cubic,
Trapeze,
Rideshare)
for
a
ride
matching
platform,
marketing
&
outreach,
and
technical
guidance
and
operation.
Though
it
is
more
expensive
upfront
due
to
consulting
services
required,
this
kind
of
partnership
is
less
risky
and
capacity-­?intensive
because
the
private
company
assumes
an
operational
role
and
some
financial
risk.
They
also
work
with
the
agency
to
find
external
funding
sources,
which
might
supplement
project
costs.
Ultimately,
the
private
entity
can
help
establish
a
more
individualized
network
uniquely
tailored
to
fit
the
Island?s
needs.
Because
this
arrangement
is
not
sensitive
to
potential
company
acquisitions,
buy-­?outs
or
changes
in
structure
and
ownership
(as
is
frequent
with
emerging
TNCs
and
startups),
there
is
greater
long-­?term
stability
in
a
P3
contract.

15|

P a g e

!

Establish
a
pilot
project
at
the
University
of
Hawai`i
?
Hilo.
A
University
project
partnership
with
either
an
existing
rideshare
network
or
another
third
party
vendor
to
test
ridesharing
on
Hawai`i
Island.
These
types
of
projects
have
taken
been
piloted
on
the
Mainland;
results
have
varied
depending
on
school
and
commuter
populations.

CONCLUSION

Despite
the
geographical
complexities
associated
with
island-­?wide
transportation
connectivity
and
accessibility,
there
are
a
number
of
optimizing
cost-­?effective
technological
innovations
available
both
in
public
transit
and
through
the
private
sector.
This
report
is
intended
to
evaluate
the
existing
transportation
alternatives
available
within
the
existing
administrative
framework
and
organizational
structure
in
order
to
provide
County
officials
with
the
most
comprehensive
information
in
weighing
their
options
moving
forward.
We
hope
these
recommendations
are
useful
and
salient
as
the
County
government
begins
to
develop
sustainable
transportation
planning
strategies
well
into
the
future.

16|

P a g e

2:
PROJECT
OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Residents
of
Hawai`i
Island
pay
some
of
the
highest
rates
for
electricity
and
petroleum
products
among
residents
of
the
United
States.

17

Moreover,
the
islands
in
the
Hawaiian
archipelago
rely
almost
entirely

on
imported
petroleum
fuels
for
both
transportation
and
energy
generation.

18

Though
Hawai`i
Island

has
integrated
more
renewable
energy
onto
its
electrical
grid
than
anywhere
else
in
the
U.S.,

19

the

reliance
on
fossil
fuel
remains
high
because
more
than
half
the
energy
demand
of
the
island
can
be
attributed
to
transportation.

20

This
project
has
been
undertaken
to
understand
the
current
transportation
situation
on
the
island
and
offer
suggestions
that
will
improve
accessibility
for
the
island?s
residents,
while
decreasing
fossil
fuel
dependence
and
promoting
more
energy
efficient
options
for
commuting
and
transit.
We
chose
this
focus
because
ground
transportation
is
particularly
energy
intensive
on
Hawai`i
Island
due
to
a
reliance
on
a
large
energy
inefficient
fleet
of
personal
vehicles.

21

On
Hawai`i
Island
the
vast
majority
of
residents
(69%)
choose
to
commute
alone
via
personal
vehicles
like
cars,
trucks
and
vans,
while
only
2%
of
commuters
choose
public
transit
to
get
to
work.

22

The

remainder
of
the
workforce
either
carpools
to
work
or
works
from
home.

23

Traditional
mass
transit

systems
can
be
used
to
increase
energy
efficiency,
as
well
as
energy
sustainability;
as
a
result
we
have
designed
this
project
to
explore
the
need
for
improvements
to
this
system.
We
will
develop
suggestions
for
optimizing
the
current
system,
as
well
as
potential
alternatives
that
include
the
establishment
of
carpooling
and
ridesharing
networks
that
would
decrease
the
number
of
private
vehicles
trips
used
and
thus
fuel
consumption.

PROJECT
OBJECTIVES

The
University
of
Michigan
team
was
engaged
by
The
Kohala
Center
to
examine
and
analyze
the
public
transit
system
of
Hawai`i
Island.
The
primary
objective
of
the
project
is
to
develop
a
set
of
recommendations
for
public
and
private
investments
focused
on
high-­?impact
solutions
to
reduce
fossil
fuel
use
in
the
island?s
ground
transportation
system,
while
improving
accessibility
and
lowering
travel
times.
The
plan
recommendations
include:

? Consolidating
and
analyzing
the
data
collected
by
the
County
of
Hawai`i
on
their
transportation

infrastructure
and
public
transit
system;

? Ensuring
an
inclusive
process
by
engaging
a
diverse
set
of
stakeholders
on
Hawai`i
Island
to

understand
and
communicate
their
needs
and
experiences;

? Providing
a
number
of
technological,
business
and
infrastructure
solutions
for
the
issues

identified
by
the
project
stakeholders;

17|

P a g e

PROJECT
APPROACH

The
University
of
Michigan
team
approached
the
project
from
a
macro
to
micro
perspective,
starting
with
understanding
of
the
energy
and
fossil
fuel
dependence
challenges
of
Hawai`i
Island
and
identifying
a
specific
issue
area,
from
which
we
could
narrow
the
scope
of
the
project.
Upon
selecting
the
public
transit
system
as
our
focus,
we
developed
a
set
of
testable
hypotheses
to
guide
our
research.

PROJECT
HYPOTHESES

Improvements
in
the
current
public
transportation
system
will
increase
ridership
and
reduce
personal
vehicle
use.

The
introduction
of
car-­?share
and
ride-­?share
services
will
reduce
the
number
of
personal
vehicles
used.

(See
Appendix
A
for
more
details
on
Project
Hypotheses.)

PROJECT
METHODOLOGY

We
then
followed
the
project
methodology
depicted
in
Figure
2-­?1
below.

Figure
2-­?1
Project
Methodology
Diagram

Our
team
continued
our
research
by
performing
a
literature
review
to
help
broaden
our
knowledge
of
existing
comparable
transportation
systems
to
identify
potential
solutions
through
improvements
to
existing
infrastructure
or
introduction
of
new
practices.
We
continued
gathering
data
with
an
on-­?site
research
trip.
The
primary
goal
of
our
August
2013
trip
to
Hawai`i
Island
was
to
meet
and
engage
with
the
groups
and
people
working
on
a
variety
of
issues
related
our
own
project.

OVERVIEW
OF
STAKEHOLDERS

Residents
of
Hawai`i
Island

? Urban
Residents
of
Hilo
and
Waimea
? Residents
living
outside
the
urban
centers
of
Hilo
or
Waimea
in
dispersed
communities
? Residents
and
visitors
of
the
Kona-­?Kohala
Coast

Initial

Research on

Hawai`i Island

and Public

Transit

On-site

Research Trip

Mapping of

Current System

Analysis of Key

Findings from Trip

Research and Analysis

Recommendations

Updating the Current

Technology

New Business Models

18|

P a g e

Government
Agencies
and
Officials

Our
group
was
fortunate
enough
to
meet
with
representatives
of
the
Mass
Transit
Authority,
Office
of
the
Mayor,
Department
of
Research
and
Development,
Department
of
Planning,
as
well
as
the
County?s
Energy
Coordinator.

We
spoke
with
representatives
of
various
business
associations
on
Hawai`i
Island,
including
Hawai`i
Island
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
the
Kohala
Coast
Resort
Association

MAPPING
PROJECT

Our
team
analyzed
existing
available
data
to
develop
a
set
of
maps
of
the
Mass
Transit
System.
These
maps
were
used
to
understand
the
basic
efficiency
of
the
system
and
where
to
focus
our
research
on
necessary
improvements.
(See
Mapping
Transit
on
Hawai`i
Islandon
page
33
for
more
details.)

DEVELOPING
OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS

The
final
step
in
our
process
was
to
synthesize
all
our
data
and
analysis
into
a
set
of
cohesive
recommendations.
Based
on
our
original
hypotheses
and
this
synthesis
we
focused
on
two
sets
of
recommendations.

Opportunities
for
improvements
to
the
current
mass
transit
system
and
technology
(See
page
51.)

New
business
models
to
introduce
ridesharing
and
car-­?
or
van-­?pooling
(See
page
72.)

19|

P a g e

3:
AN
OVERVIEW
OF
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

GEOGRAPHY

The
Hawaiian
Islands
are
an
archipelago
encompassing
many
small
volcanic
islands
stretched
along
a
2,400
kilometer
swath
of
the
North
Pacific
Ocean.
There
are
eight
main
islands
in
the
archipelago,
Hawai`i,
Maui,
O`ahu,
Kaua`i,
Moloka`i,
Lana`i,
Ni`ihau,
and
Kaho`olawe.

24

Hawai`i
Island,

also
known
as
?The
Big
Island,?
is
the
youngest
and
biggest
of
all
of
the
Hawaiian
Islands;
covering
10,432
square
kilometers,
it
is
roughly
the
size
of
the
State
of
Connecticut.

25

Hawai`i
Island
is
comprised
of
five
shield
volcanoes:
Kohala
on
the
north
tip
of
the
island
and
considered
extinct,
Mauna
Kea
on
the
northeast
of
island
and
considered
dormant,
Hualalai
in
the
west
and
active,
but
has
not
erupted
since
the
early
1800s,
Mauna
Loa
in
the
central
part
of
the
island
and
still
active,
Kilauea
on
the
southeast
side
of
the
island
and
very
active
as
it
has
been
erupting
since
1983.

26

The

presence
of
these
large
volcanoes
creates
a
unique
?microcosm
of
environments?
on
Hawai`i
Island.
Within
this
single
island
visitors
and
residents
experience
such
diverse
ecosystems
as
tropical
rainforests,
volcanic
deserts,
polar
tundra,
grasslands,
and
of
course,
beaches.

27

On
average,
however,

the
daytime
temperature
in
summer
is
29.4°C
and
25.6°C
in
the
winter.

28

Though
the
volcanoes
play
an
integral
part
in
the
geological,
environmental,
and
cultural
history
of
the
island,
they
do
have
their
drawbacks,
particularly
for
transportation.
The
elevation
of
the
volcanoes
and
the
threat
of
volcanic
activity
and
other
natural
disasters
make
a
rail
system
cost-­?prohibitively
expensive,
as
well
as
limits
the
reach
and
upkeep
of
roads
and
highways.
The
unique
habitats
are
also
part
of
the
natural
and
cultural
heritage
of
the
islands.
Their
preservation
also
restricts
the
construction
of
an
extensive
transportation
infrastructure
on
Hawai`i
Island.

GOVERNANCE

In
1959,
after
more
than
60
years
of
being
a
Territory,
Hawai`i
became
the
50

th

state
to
join
the
United

States
of
America.
Hawai`i
has
all
the
rights
and
privileges
afforded
to
other
states,
including

(From
lonelyplanet.com)

Figure
3-­?1

20|

P a g e

participating
in
federal
legislation
with
two
senators
and
two
representatives.
The
state
government
is
modeled
closely
on
the
U.S.
Federal
Government.

29

The
seat
of
government
is
Honolulu
in
the
Island
of

O?ahu,
where
the
executive
branch
is
led
by
Governor
Neil
Abercrombie

30

and
Lieutenant
Governor
Shan

S.
Tsutsui.

31

The
legislative
branch
is
bi-­?cameral
and
composed
of
a
51-­?member
Hawai`i
House
of

Representatives

32

and
a
25-­?member
Hawai`i
Senate.

33

The
county
governments
are
charged
with
the
administration
of
each
island.
Hawai`i
County
is
governed
by
the
County
Mayor,
and
legislated
by
a
nine-­?member
County
Council,
which
passes
laws
and
creates
public
policy.
The
Mayor
is
elected
in
a
county-­?wide
election
and
the
Council
Members
are
elected
by
the
constituents
from
a
geographically
distinct
county
district.

34

The
Mayor
supervises
and
oversees
the
functions
of
all
Executive
branch
departments
and
agencies
and
appoints
the
county
officials
that
work
to
achieve
the
public
policy
goals
of
the
county
government.
Included
in
this
purview
are
the
Departments
of
Planning,
Public
Works,
and
Research
and
Development,
and
the
Mass
Transit
Agency,
all
of
which
are
important
in
the
development
and
implementation
of
transportation
policy
across
the
island.

ECONOMICS

Traditionally
one
of
the
biggest
economic
sectors
in
the
Hawaiian
Islands
has
been
agriculture.
Because
of
the
mild
year
round
climate,
companies
began
to
come
to
Hawai`i
to
build
plantations
to
ramp
up
production
of
agricultural
goods
for
export.
In
the
mid-­?1830s,
sugar
plantations
gained
their
footholds
on
Kaua?i
and
soon
began
to
spread
to
the
other
islands
and
rapidly
became
one
of
the
chief
products
of

the
islands.

35

The
sugar
industry
economy
continued
to

prosper
with
a
peak
production
of
1
million
tons
of
sugar
in
1931.
In
the
intervening
years
the
industry
dwindled
with
growing
foreign
competition
and
availability
of
substitutes
and
the
last
sugar
plantations
on
Hawai`i
Island
closed
in
the
1990s.

36

Agriculture
still
plays
a
pretty
big
role
in
the
economy
of
Hawai`i.
The
state
exported
an
estimated
$395
million
in
agricultural
products
to
the
Mainland
United
States
and
$499
million
to
foreign
countries.

37

Agricultural
lands
are

now
being
farmed
and
ranched
in
support
of
a
number
of
diversified
products
including
macadamia
nuts,
coffee,
and
pineapples.

38

Hawai`i
Island
is
particularly
famous
for

its
Kona
coffee
and
beef
from
the
vast
Parker
Ranch.

Tourism
is
another
important
industry
for
the
Hawaiian
Islands.
In
2012,
8
million
tourists
spent
approximately
$14.4
billion
while
visiting
the
islands.

39

Hawai`i
Island

specifically
hosted
1.6
million
tourists
who
spent
$1.7

Rank Employer

Employees

1

State
of
Hawai'i

8063

2

County
of
Hawai'i

2663

3

United
States
Government

1421

4

Hilton
Waikoloa
Village

881

5

Wal-­?Mart

770

6

KTA
Super
Stores

700

7

The
Fairmont
Orchid,
Hawai'i

618

8

Four
Seasons
Resort
Hualalai

550

9

Mauna
Kea
Beach
Hotel

550

10

Mauna
Lani
Resort
(Operations)
Inc.

529

Rank Employer

Employees

1

State
of
Hawai'i

7608

2

County
of
Hawai'i

2291

3

United
States
Government

1221

4

Hilton
Waikoloa
Village

1100

5

KTA
Super
Stores

785

6

The
Fairmont
Orchid,
Hawai'i

600

7

Mauna
Lani
Bay
Hotel

580

8

Four
Seasons
Resort
Hualalai

557

9

Mauna
Kea
Beach
Hotel

556

10

Hapuna
Beach
Prince
Hotel

542

2010

Principal
Employers,
County
of
Hawai'i

2004

Source: Haw ai'i County Annual Financial Report 2011

Figure
3-­?2

21|

P a g e

billion.

40

Tourism,
in
particular,
shapes
the
transportation
needs
of
the
county
residents
and
visitors.

Some
of
the
biggest
employers
on
the
island
are
the
large
resorts
on
the
Kohala
coast.
Employees
of
those
resorts
generally
live
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
island

41

and
efficient
and
cost-­?effective
travel

options
are
very
important
to
them.
Therefore,
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
has
designed
the
island?s
public
transit
system,
in
part,
for
these
commuters.

42

SOCIO-­?ECONOMICS
AND
DEMOGRAPHY

43

In
2010
Census,
the
population
of
Hawai`i
Island
was
185,079,
almost
tripling
the
population
of
the
island
since
1970.
A
plurality
(31%)
of
the
population
identify
as
?White.?
The
next
largest
demographic
group
(24%)
is
?Other?
which
consists
of
non-­?specified
races
and
those
that
identify
with
multiple
races.
Those
that
identify
as
?Asian?
make
up
23%
of
the
population,
while
Native
Hawaiians
and
Hispanics
make
up
10%
and
12%
respectively.
Of
the
64,925
households
on
the
island,
17,417
or
26.8%
had
children
under
the
age
of
18.
The
majority
of
the
people
living
in
the
county
(88%)
are
U.S.
Citizens
and
57.4%
were
born
in
Hawai`i.
Residents
of
Hawai`i
County
are
less
likely
to
move
residences
as
85%
are
living
in
the
same
house
they
were
living
in
one
year
previously
and
75%
of
those
who
moved
remained
in
Hawai`i
County.
This
data
suggests
that
Hawai`i
Island
residents
form
?tight-­?knit?
communities
and
are
reluctant
to
break
up
these
communities.

22|

P a g e

4:
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND
AND
OTHER
RURAL
LOCALITIES

RURAL
TRANSIT
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES

According
to
the
American
Community
Survey
(ACS),
rural
areas
are
defined
by
their
small
populations,
low-­?population
density,
and
geographic
isolation.

44

About
75
million
or
25%
of
the
US
population,

including
many
residents
of
Hawai`i
County,
lives
in
rural
parts
of
the
country,
many
of
whom
are
heavily
reliant
on
automobiles
for
transportation.

45

Developing
and
maintaining
rural
transit
networks
to
serve

these
populations
is
a
daunting
prospect,
but
can
reap
rewards
through
the
improvements
to
quality
of
life,
the
environment,
and
cost
of
living.
According
to
the
AARP,
public
transit
is
key
to
helping
older
individuals
remain
independent
and
active
and
important
in
providing
access
to
health
care,
social
services
and
employment.

46

CHARACTERISTICS
OF
RURAL
POPULATIONS

The
US
Census
and
ACS
data
is
helpful
in
understanding
the
characteristics
of
rural
population
that
distinguish
them
from
urban
and
suburban
populations
and
require
special
consideration
when
providing
services
like
transportation.
Generally,
U.S.
rural
populations:

47

? Have
a
higher
median
income
than
urban
populations
as
urban
populations
have
more

individuals
living
under
the
poverty
line.
(This
income
disparity
is
reversed
in
Hawai`i,
as
the
urban
populations,
like
Honolulu
have
a
higher
median
income
than
rural
Hawai`i.);

? Have
a
higher
median
age
than
urban
populations;
? Are
less
likely
to
move
and
when
they
do
move
they
are
less
likely
to
move
long
distances;
? Are
more
likely
to
own
a
car
and
to
use
that
car
for
commuting;
? Are
more
likely
to
have
a
longer
commute
than
urban
populations.

These
characteristics
suggest
that
rural
transit
systems
must
be
designed
to
serve
older
residents
and
residents
who
are
used
to
having
the
flexibility
of
using
their
own
vehicles
and
commute
slightly
longer
distances.

In
terms
of
transit
itself,
rural
residents
are
less
likely
to
have
access
to
public
transit
amenities.
According
to
the
2011
Transit
and
Community
Livability
Report
produced
by
Ripplinger,
Ndembe,
and
Hough
at
North
Dakota
State
University,
only
13-­?22%
of
people
living
in
rural
areas
have
access
to
public
transit,
compared
to
57%
of
the
national
population.
They
are
also
more
likely
to
have
longer
commutes
to
reach
public
transit,
averaging
more
than
8
minutes
to
the
6-­?minute
national
average.

48

23|

P a g e

RURAL
TRANSIT
PROVIDERS

According
to
the
Rural
National
Transit
Database,
in
2011
there
were
1,392
Rural
Transit
Providers
serving
2,410
counties
across
the
United
States.

49

These
providers
offered
a
variety
of
types
of
service,

including
fixed-­?route,
demand-­?response,
ferries,
commuter
buses,
vanpools
and
various
combinations
of
those
modes
of
transportation,
demonstrating
that
rural
transit
is
not
a
?one
size
fits
all?
situation.

On
average,
fleet
sizes
have
been
increasing
over
the
last
few
years,
up
from
14.3
vehicles
per
agency
in
2007
to
16.6
vehicles
per
agency
in
2011.

50

Rural
transit
relies
on
a
number
of
types
of
vehicles,
with

the
most
popular
being
the
Cutaway,
a
small
adaptable
bus
or
van.
This
is
likely
because
Cutaways
are
easy
to
customize
and
are
more
practical
for
serving
smaller
rural
populations,
as
on
average
they
can
seat
14.9
people.

51

Rural
transit
systems
experienced
growing
ridership,
with
an
increase
from
120.9
million
rides
in
2010
to
122.6
million
rides
in
2011
or
about
1%.

52

Reviewing
the
data
more
closely,
however,
we
see
that
there

is
not
an
even
gain
across
all
rural
transit
networks.
Only
61%
of
transit
providers,
including
the
Mass
Transit
Authority
of
Hawai`i
County,
saw
an
increase
in
ridership,
with
36%
seeing
an
increase
of
20%
or
more.
On
the
other
hand,
28%
saw
a
decrease
of
at
least
5%
and
12%
saw
a
decrease
of
at
least
20%.

53

There
are
federal
tax
subsidies
that
can
be
realized
by
the
employer
or
employee,
or
both,
by
using
public
transit
for
commuting
under
the
Commuter
Tax
Benefits
program.
The
current
limit
is
$130/month
per
employee,
but
it
recently
dropped
to
this
level
from
$245/month
after
Congress
failed
to
renew
the
tax
credit
before
January
1,
so
there
is
a
possibility
that
the
limit
will
be
increased
again.

54

These
are
tax
savings
that
are
realized
through
accounting
procedures,
and
details
on
the
process
can
be
found
at
the
IRS
website.

55

If
employers
were
not
interested
in
working
through
the
process
themselves,

they
could
use
outside
help
in
the
form
of
a
third-­?party
agency,
such
as
WageWorks,
or
an
accounting
firm.

56

While
it
likely
would
not
result
in
hugely
significant
savings,
increasing
participation
in
the

program
would
reduce
the
cost
of
using
public
transit
for
the
people
of
Hawai`i
Island
without
reducing
revenues
realized
by
Hele-­?On.

CHALLENGES
FOR
RURAL
TRANSIT
SERVICE
PROVIDERS

Rural
Transit
Service
Providers
face
a
number
of
challenges
in
delivering
high
quality,
convenient
and
cost-­?effective
transit
options
for
their
clientele.
Generally
they
are
being
asked
to
serve
a
large
area
with
a
dispersed
population
with
a
limited
budget..
Service
providers
must
optimize
their
systems
to
cover
long
distances
and
occasionally
difficult
terrain.

57

They
must
rely
on
a
variety
of
fleet
vehicles,
causing

the
need
for
more
administrative
capacity,
operational
and
maintenance
knowledge,
and
general
coordination.

Providers
have
three
models
for
transporting
populations.
They
can
offer
fixed
route
transportation
that
serves
a
pre-­?set
route
on
a
particular
schedule.
They
can
also
provide
demand
response
service
that
employs
a
fleet
of
vehicles
to
pick
users
up
at
a
requested
time
and
location.
The
last
option
is
a
hybrid
of
the
other
two
systems.
This
means
that
a
vehicle
will
follow
a
prescribed
route
only
when
users
request
it.
Rural
service
providers
are
serving
a
relatively
isolated
population
with
intermittent
demand.

24|

P a g e

It
can
be
time-­?consuming
and
inconvenient
for
the
users
to
use
a
fixed
route
system.
A
demand
response
system
is
flexible
and
adaptable,
but
can
be
extremely
expensive
to
maintain.

HAWAI`I
COUNTY
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE

Hawai`i
Island
is
the
size
of
the
State
of
Connecticut
and
consists
of
five
volcanoes,
three
of
which
are
still
somewhat
active.

58

Its
size,
unique
geography,
and
propensity
for
earthquakes,
volcanic
eruptions

and
tsunamis
make
it
a
challenge
for
developing
a
transportation
infrastructure.
The
island
had
a
number
of
railroads
from
the
1800s
through
1940s
to
transport
sugar
and
other
agricultural
goods
for
export,
passengers
from
Hilo
up
to
Waimea,
and
even
tourists
to
the
Hamakua
Coast.
These
railroads
were
extremely
expensive
to
build
and
maintain
and
were
sold
off
by
the
Hawai`i
Consolidated
Railroad
after
the
destructive
tsunami
of
1946.
The
rights-­?of-­?way,
tracks
and
remaining
bridges,
trestles
and
tunnels
were
eventually
bought
by
the
Territory
of
Hawai`i
and
became
the
routes
for
the
current
highway
system.

59

Currently
Hawai`i
Island
is
served
by
a
few
major
two-­?lane
highways
that
transport
residents
from
one
side
of
the
island
to
the
other.
Hawai`i
Belt
Road
(Highway
19)
is
a
major
route
from
Hilo
to
Kailua-­?Kona
and
it
takes
a
driver
approximately
2
hours,
or
95
miles.

60

This

is
the
road
preferred
by
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
because
it
circumnavigates
the
volcano
peaks
and
the
population
lives
along
this
road
making
pick-­?ups
ideal.

61

The
other
option
for
this
trip
is
the
newly
opened
Daniel
K.
Inouye
Highway,
which
completed
the
realignment
and
widening
of
this
route,
passing
between
Mauna
Kea
and
Mauna
Loa
and
connecting
the
existing
Saddle
Road
(Highway
200)
to
Mamalahoa
Highway.

62

This
route
is

approximately
78
miles
long
and
will
take
drivers
1
hour
and
40
minutes
to
traverse.

63

Hawai`i
Belt
Road
also
continues
south
from
Kailua-­?Kona
as
Highway
11.
This
road
travels
down
the
Kona
coast
to
the
most
southern
point
on
the
island
in
Ka`u,
then
northeast
past
the
Kilauea
Crater,
Puna
and
arrives
in
Hilo
125
miles
and
almost
3
hours
later.

64

This
route
is
likely
popular
with
tourists

visiting
Hawai`i
Volcanoes
National
Park.
Puna
is
served
by
Highways
130,
132,
and
137,
though
parts
of
Highway
130
have
been
buried
under
the
current
eruption
from
the
Pu`u
`
O`o
vent.

65

HAWAI`I
ISLAND

Figure
4-­?1:
Road
Map
of
Hawai'i
Island

25|

P a g e

CHARACTERISTICS
OF
HAWAI`I
COUNTY
COMMUTERS

Residents
of
Hawai`i
Island
face
many
of
the
same
transit
challenges
as
other
rural
populations,
though
their
characteristics
are
slightly
different
than
those
of
the
average
rural
commuter
on
the
mainland.
The
following
graphs
detail
the
trends
and
characteristics
of
Hawai`i
commuters
and
were
created
from
data
gathered
during
the
2012
American
Community
Survey.

COMMUTER
TYPES

Hawai`i
Island
residents
primarily
choose
to
commute
to
work
by
personal
automobile
(cars,
trucks
and
vans).
While
most
commute
alone,
about
15%
participate
in
carpooling
to
get
work.
Less
than
2%
of
the
population
takes
public
transit
to
get
to
work.
Compared
to
the
United
States
as
a
whole,
carpooling
is
more
frequent
on
Hawai`i
Island.
While
the
majority
of
residents
of
Hawai`i
County
commute
using
an
individual
personal
vehicle,
14.5%
carpool
to
work,
50%
above
the
national
average
for
carpooling
in
rural
areas.
Fewer
residents
of
Hawai`i
County
commute
using
public
transit
than
other
transit
options,
but
the
level
is
almost
three
times
the
national
average
for
other
rural
areas.
In
general
comparing
Hawai`i
County
to
other
rural
populations,
fewer
residents
of
the
county
use
personal
vehicles
to
get
to
work,
while
more
carpool
and
take
public
transit.

Table
4-­?1:
Modes
of
Commuting

United

States

Rural

Hawai'i
County

Maui
County

Mode
Used

Commuting

alone

76.4%

81.4%

72.7%

68.4%

Carpooling

9.8%

9.9%

14.5%

14,9%

Public
Transit

5.0%

0.6%

1.7%

2.3%

Other

8.8%

8.1%

11.1%

14.9%

Data from American Community Survey

26|

P a g e

INCOME

Compared
to
the
rest
of
the
United
States
and
other
rural
populations,
residents
of
Hawai`i
County
generally
earn
less
income.
Figure
4-­?2
below
shows
that
those
who
commuted
alone
using
their
own
personal
vehicle
on
the
whole
earned
more
than
those
who
carpooled
or
used
public
transit.
Interestingly,
in
Hawai`i
County
public
transit
commuters
had
a
much
lower
median
earnings
level.
They
only
earned
$16k,
while
those
that
commuted
alone
or
via
carpool
earned
almost
twice
that
amount.
This
suggests
that
lower
income
commuters,
who
do
not
have
access
to
or
cannot
afford
a
personal
vehicle,
are
the
predominant
user
of
the
public
transit
system
on
Hawai`i
Island.

Figure
4-­?2

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling

Public

Transit

United
States

$32,417

$35,132

$26,013

$30,950

Rural

$31,653

$32,287

$27,690

$31,920

Hawai'i
County

$29,492

$30,393

$27,714

$16,343

$-­?

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

Ear

nings

Per

Cap

ita

Hawai`i
County
Median
Earning

27|

P a g e

OCCUPATIONS

The
workforce
of
Hawai`i
Island
is
relatively
evenly
dispersed
between
management-­?level,
service
and
sales/office
jobs.
Sorting
these
occupations
by
commute
type
shows
that
those
who
commute
alone
and
carpool
have
a
similar
breakdown
to
the
island
as
a
whole.
Public
transit
commuters,
however,
are
predominantly
service,
construction
and
maintenance
workers,
suggesting
that
a
majority
of
bus
users
likely
fall
in
the
lower-­?income
brackets.

Figure
4-­?3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling

Public
Transit

Hawai`i
County
Occupagons

Military

Produclon
and
Transportalon

Construclon
and
Maintenance

Sales
and
O?ce

Service

Management

28|

P a g e

INDUSTRY

Overall
Hawai`i
County
residents
tend
to
work
in
three
key
industries:
Retail
Trade,
Social
Services
(Education,
Healthcare,
etc.)
and
Hospitality.
Public
transit
commuters,
however,
are
much
more
likely
to
work
in
the
Agriculture
and
Hospitality
industries.
Traditionally
these
are
lower-­?wage
industries
and
data
is
again
consistent
with
the
theory
that
public
transit
users
are
low-­?income
and
may
use
the
system
because
it
offers
a
more
a
cost-­?effective
commuting
option
compared
to
the
cost
of
vehicle
ownership
along
with
high
gas
prices.

Figure
4-­?4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling
Public
Transit

Hawai`i
County
Industries

Military

Public
Administralon

Other

Recrealon/
Food/

Accomodalon

Educalon/
Healthcare/

Social

Management

Real
estate/
Finance/

Insurance

Transportalon/
Ulliles

Retail
trade

Wholesale
trade

Manufacturing

Construclon

Agriculture

29|

P a g e

VEHICLE
AVAILABILITY

Unlike
the
rest
of
the
United
States,
virtually
all
of
the
residents
of
Hawai`i
County
have
access
to
a
car.
Similar
to
other
rural
populations,
fewer
than
2%
of
residents
of
the
county
have
no
vehicle
access,
illustrating
their
extreme
reliance
on
personal
vehicles
for
transportation.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
the
data
collected
by
the
ACS
indicates
that
most
if
not
all
of
the
public
transit
commuters
also
own
a
vehicle.
This
is
very
different
from
the
United
States
on
a
whole;
the
countrywide
data
shows
that
37%
of
public
transit
commuters
have
no
vehicle
available
for
their
use.
This
suggests
that
public
transit
commuters
on
Hawai`i
choose
to
travel
this
way
for
reasons
other
than
simple
vehicle
availability.

Figure
4-­?5

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling

Public
Transit

3
or
more
vehicles
available

35.9%

37.4%

36.8%

33.7%

2
vehicles
available

40.8%

42.1%

36.6%

44.2%

1
vehicle
available

21.8%

19.4%

25.8%

22.1%

No
vehicle
available

1.5%

1.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

County
of
Hawai'i
Vehicle
Availability

30|

P a g e

COMMUTING
TIME

The
chart
below
shows
average
commute
lengths
for
the
different
types
of
commuters
of
Hawai`i
Island.
Among
all
the
residents
of
the
island,
the
average
time
it
takes
to
commute
to
work
is
between
25
and
30
minutes.
This
is
consistent
with
the
data
from
the
United
States
and
the
rural
areas
of
the
United
States.
Public
transit
commutes
in
the
United
States
tend
to
be
longer
than
solo
and
carpool
commutes
with
the
average
of
48
minutes.
Rural
areas
have
slightly
longer
public
transit
commutes
(50
minutes),
while
Hawai`i
Island
is
substantially
longer
at
68
minutes.
In
fact,
more
than
50%
of
public
transit
commuters
on
the
island
have
a
commute
of
60
minutes
or
longer
and
almost
75%
have
a
commute
of
45
minutes
or
longer.

Figure
4-­?6

-­?

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total

Commulng

Alone

Carpooling
Public
Transit

Hawai'i
County
Commute
Length

60
or
more
minutes

45
to
59
minutes

30
to
44
minutes

20
to
29
minutes

10
to
19
minutes

Less
than
10
minutes

Mean
travel
lme
to
work

(minutes)

31|

P a g e

HAWAI`I
COUNTY
MASS
TRANSIT
AGENCY

The
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
began
collecting
ridership
data
again
in
2005
and
currently
delivers
public
transportation
with
its
Hele-­?On
bus
service
and
shared
taxi
program.

66

The
Hele-­?On
bus

offers
16
route
options
that
range
from
intra-­?city
(i.e.
Kona
and
Hilo)
to
inter-­?city
(i.e.
Hilo
to
Waimea)
to
trans-­?island
(i.e.
Hilo
to
Kohala
resorts).
The
fare
for
riding
the
bus
has
recently
increased
(as
of
July
1,
2013)
from
$1.00
to
$2.00
per
ride
and
from
free
to
$1.00
for
students,
disabled
individuals
and
seniors.

67

The
shared
taxi
program
offers
door-­?to-­?door
taxi
service
within
Hilo
and
Kona
for
between

$2.00-­?3.00
for
trips
fewer
than
four
miles
and
between
$6.00-­?9.00
for
trips
fewer
than
nine
miles.
The
agency
is
funded
by
the
local
and
federal
governments,
but
receives
no
state
funding
for
their
operations.

68

As
of
2011
the
agency
had
a
staff
of
seven
full-­?time
equivalent
employees.

69

According
to
the
Mass

Transit
Administrator,
the
agency
has
hired
a
new
transit
assistant,
account
clerk,
and
mechanic
and
will
be
adding
an
additional
mechanic
in
the
first
quarter
of
2014
to
meet
the
increasing
demand
for
service,
particularly
in
fast-­?growing
areas
like
Puna.

70

Figure
4-­?7

Ridership
has
been
gradually
increasing
since
the
service
began.
According
the
most
recent
available
Comprehensive
Fiscal
Report
produced
by
Hawai`i
County
for
the
Fiscal
Year
ending
on
June
30,
2011,
the
ridership
surpassed
1
million
passengers
in
2010
and
reached
approximately
1.15
million
in
2011.

71

As
of
2011,
the
agency
owned
a
fleet
of
56
vehicles
to
serve
these
riders.
These
vehicles
ranged
in
size

-­?

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Mi

llions

of

Passengers

Year

Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
Ridership

32|

P a g e

from
a
43-­?foot
double-­?decker
bus
with
a
seating
capacity
of
89
people
to
40-­?foot
buses
with
seating
capacities
of
45-­?49
people
to
minibuses
with
a
capacity
of
20-­?32
people
to
minivans
with
a
capacity
of
10
people.

72

ANALYSIS
OF
THE
MASS
TRANSIT
AGENCY

In
order
to
provide
the
most
useful
suggestions
to
help
to
Mass
Transit
Agency
achieve
its
goals
of
providing
transportation
to
those
who
desire
it,
we
completed
a
SWOT
analysis
to
identify
the
strengths,
weaknesses,
opportunities,
and
threats
to
the
Island?s
transit
agency.
This
framework
acted
as
a
guide
for
the
analysis
phase
of
this
project
and
helped
us
focus
our
recommendations
on
those
that
are
feasible
and
implementable.

Figure
4-­?8:
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
SWOT
Analysis

Helpful

Harmful

In

te

rnal

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

?
Many
routes
are
available
and
cross
the
island.
?
Trans-­?island
commuter
routes
are
popular
and
used
extensively.
?
New
staff
joining
the
agency
in
Fall
2013,
more
capacity.

?
New
administrator,
who
is
interested
in
optimizing
the
current
system
and
increasing
services
available.
?
County
officials
are
engaged
in
the
project
and
support
innovative
solutions.
?
County
government
is
committed
to
improving
quality
of
life
for
residents
of
the
island.

?
The
Transit
Agency
does
not
employ
technology
to
track
ridership
or
optimize
its
current
route
and
schedule
planning.
?
Communications
and
knowledge
sharing
about
transit
routes
is
limited.

?
There
is
a
funding
gap
between
the
cost
of
service
and
the
revenue
received
from
providing
service.

Exte

rnal

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

?
Many
new
cost-­?effective
technologies
are
available
to
help
optimize
Hawai`i
Island?s
current
system.
?
New
businesses
are
in
development
on
the

mainland
and
the
other
Hawaiian
Islands
that
could
partner
with
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
to
provide
other
types
of
services.
?
Many
groups
on
the
island
can
share
knowledge
and
ideas
to
help
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
achieve
its
goals.
?
There
are
a
number
of
businesses
and
students
at
the
UH-­?Hilo
to
participate
in
pilot
programs.

?
Mass
transit
must
serve
very
large
county
with
a
dispersed
population.
?
Island
geography
makes
creating
new
infrastructure
infeasible
or
cost-­?prohibitive.

?
Residents
are
reliant
on
their
cars
and
it
may
be
hard
to
convince
them
to
use
public
transit
instead.
?
Federal
funding
sources
are
beholden
to
political
forces
in
Washington,
DC.

33|

P a g e

MAPPING
TRANSIT
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

Because
transit
systems
are
tied
so
profoundly
to
the
geography,
our
team
analyzed
existing
available
GIS,
Census,
County
of
Hawai`i
and
other
data
to
understand
the
unique
transit
patterns
and
other
interactions
between
the
people
and
places
on
the
island.
We
created
maps
of
bus
routes,
work
hubs,
recreation
hubs
and
population
density
to
illustrate
these
unique
patterns.

ANALYSIS
OF
MAPS

POPULATION
DENSITY

The
population
density
map
in
Figure
4-­?9
shows
that
population
is
clustered
around
the
perimeter
of
the
island
at
major
towns
including
Hilo,
Keaau,
Mt.
View,
Pahoa,
Ocean
View,
Kealakekua,
Keauhou,
Kailua-­?Kona,
Waikoloa,
Waimea
and
Hawi.

Figure
4-­?9

34|

P a g e

BUS
ROUTES

Figure
4-­?10
displays
the
current
bus
routes
on
Hawai`i
Island.
The
map
in
Figure
4-­?11
compares
the
bus
route
coverage
with
the
population
density
on
the
island.
Population
density
can
indicate
the
transit
need
of
the
corresponding
areas.
The
higher
the
density,
the
more
transportation
services
are
needed.
Bus
route
coverage
roughly
represents
transportation
accessibility.
The
more
bus
routes
covered
in
an
area,
the
better
the
possibility
that
the
mass
transit
system
fulfills
the
transit
requirements
of
residents.
However,
different
bus
routes
could
have
different
bus
frequencies,
and
different
buses
could
have
different
capacities.
These
factors
make
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
transportation
accessibility
nearly
impossible
based
on
the
existing
data.
Nevertheless,
the
following
table
regarding
bus
frequency
can
hopefully
provide
supporting
information
to
the
map.

Table
4-­?2:
Bus
Frequency
for
Each
Route

73

Bus
Routes

Buses
Per
Day

Downtown/Ainako/Kaumana

11

Downtown
Hilo/Aupuni
Center/Prince
Kuhio
Plaza

49

Mooheau/Keaukaha

17

Downtown/Waiakea-­?Uka

10

Hilo/South
Kohala
Resorts

12

Honokaa/Hilo

26

Ka??/Volcano/Hilo

10

Kona/Hilo

12

Intra-­?Kona

20

North
Kohala/South
Kohala

2

North
Kohala/Waimea/Kailua-­?Kona

2

Pahala/Kona/South
Kohala

6

Pohoiki/Pahoa/Hilo

22

Kamuela
Lakeland/Kamuela
View
Est

22

Waimea/Hilo

21

Waikoloa
Village

16

We
overlaid
the
bus
route
layer
and
the
population
density
layer
to
roughly
indicate
whether
the
regions
that
require
more
transit
frequency
-­?
actually
have
enough
transportation
accessibility.
If
an
area
has
a
high
population
density
and
requires
more
transit
frequency
but
has
limited
bus
route
coverage,
that
area
would
be
worth
further
studying
to
determine
if
the
current
mass
transit
system
providing
sufficient
service
to
the
area.
Analysis
of
bus
route
coverage
relative
to
work
hubs
and
recreational
hubs
are
carried
out
in
the
following
paragraphs
with
the
same
objective.

35|

P a g e

Hele-­?On
Double
Decker
Bus

(source:
hawaiicountymayor.com)

Table
4-­?3
quantifies
the
number
of
routes
serving
each
of
the
most
densely
populated
areas.
Hilo
and
Kailua-­?Kona
are
two
of
the
most-­?served
areas
with
four
routes
within
Hilo,
six
routes
to
or
from
Hilo
and
four
routes
to
or
from
Kailua-­?Kona.
However,
areas
around
Mountain
View
and
Pahoa
are
only
covered
by
one
bus
route.

Table
4-­?3:
Bus
Route
Coverage
Compared
to
Population
Density

Area

Hilo

Keaau

Mt.
View

Pahoa

Ocean
View

Bus
route
coverage

>
8

3

1

1

2

Area

Kealakekua
Keauhou
Kailua-­?Kona
Waikoloa

Hawi

Bus
route
coverage

3

4

4

2

2

36|

P a g e

Figure
4-­?10

37|

P a g e

Figure
4-­?11

38|

P a g e

The
map
in
Figure
4-­?12
compares
the
bus
routes
with
recreation
site
density.
Hot
spots
for
recreation
are
around
Hilo,
Pahala,
Honaunau,
Kailua-­?Kona,
Kawaihae,
Mahukona,
Honokaa
and
Honomu.
Their
bus
route
coverage
is
shown
accordingly
below.
It
is
worth
noting
that
Pahala
is
only
covered
by
one
bus
route.
Mauna
Kea
State
Park,
a
very
popular
attraction,

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
map
of
recreational
hubs
simply
shows
location
of
recreational
sites.
An
analysis
of
the
density
of
visitation
would
be
more
informative,
but
we
are
not
able
to
get
visitation
data
from
recreation
sites
other
than
federal-­?level
and
state-­?level
sites.
The
visitation
data
we
have
is
presented
below.
All
of
the
federal
site
data
is
actual
2013
data
from
the
U.S.
National
Park
Service.

75

The
state
park
data
is
from
the
2007
Hawai`i
State
Parks
Survey.

76

The
Survey
estimates
visitation
data

with
its
own
methodology.
Obviously
it
is
not
ideal
to
use
estimated
data
and
data
from
separate
years,
but
this
should
at
least
provide
some
context
for
the
map
of
recreational
hubs
since
the
federal-­?level
and
state-­?level
recreation
sites
are
labeled
on
the
map.

Table
4-­?5:
Annual
Visitation
of
Federal
and
State
Recreation
Sites
on
Hawai`i
Island
Federal
and
State
Recreation
Sites

Annual
Visitations

Hawai`i
Volcanoes
National
Park

1,583,209

Hapuna
Beach
State
Recreation
Area

514,300

Pu?uhonua
o
H?naunau
National
Historical
Park

363,282

Kekaha
Kai
State
Park

235,700

Old
Kona
Airport
State
Recreation
Area

217,000

Wailuku
River
State
Park

211,200

?Akaka
Falls
State
Park

189,400

Kaloko-­?Honokohau
National
Historical
Park

158,124

Kealakekua
Bay
State
Historical
Park

155,900

Wailoa
River
State
Park

155,400

Puukohola
Heiau
National
Historic
Site

125,645

Kiholo
State
Park
Reserve

76,300

Mauna
Kea
State
Recreation
Park

64,600

Lava
Tree
State
Monument

44,400

Lapakahi
State
Historical
Park

30,600

Manuka
State
Wayside
Park

25,900

keolonahihi
State
Park

22,300

MacKenzie
State
Wayside

11,900

Kohala
Historical
Sites

9,800

Kalopa
State
Recreation
Area

5,500

39|

P a g e

Figure
4-­?12

40|

P a g e

The
map
in
Figure
4-­?13
shows
bus
routes
compared
to
density
of
businesses
within
a
given
area.
A
large
number
of
businesses
are
centered
in
and
around
Hilo,
which
is
covered
by
more
than
eight
bus
routes
and
Kailua-­?Kona,
which
is
covered
by
four
bus
routes.

Hawai`i
Island
has
two
primary
airports,
Hilo
International
Airport
(ITO)
and
Kona
International
Airport
at
Keahole
(KOA).
These
two
airports
serve
as
major
hubs
for
arrival
to
and
departure
from
Hawai`i
Island.
According
to
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(FAA),
the
enplanements
(passenger
boardings)
of
ITO
and
KOA
in
2012
were
641,904
and
1,367,091
respectively.

77

Given
the
amount
of
passengers,
it
is

necessary
to
study
the
public
transit
connectivity
of
the
airports.

Currently,
ITO
is
not
covered
by
the
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
Hele-­?On
bus
service.
KOA
is
covered
by
two
bus
routes,
which
are
the
Intra
Kona
route
and
the
Pahala/Kona/South
Kohala
route,
but
the
number
of
buses
involved
is
limited.
These
two
routes
each
have
only
one
bus
going
to
KOA
at
8:20
a.m.
and
two
buses
leaving
from
KOA
at
8:30
a.m.
and
4:50
p.m.
every
Monday
to
Saturday.

78

Apart

from
the
very
limited
bus
service,
the
airports
are
also
accessible
by
car,
taxi
and
shuttle.

79
80

The

alternative
transportation
approaches,
however,
have
smaller
capacity
and
are
often
more
expensive.
As
a
result,
we
think
increasing
Hele-­?On
bus
connectivity
to
the
two
primary
airports
should
be
considered
in
future
bus
route
planning.

As
a
result
of
the
analysis,
we
can
see
that
the
current
mass
transit
system
serves
key
areas
of
the
island,
especially
business
hubs,
in
terms
of
number
of
routes,
but
we
cannot
tell
if
those
routes
run
frequently
enough
to
meet
demand.
Overall,
most
recreation
hubs
and
population
clusters
are
served
by
multiple
bus
routes,
except
that
Mauna
Kea
State
Park
is
not
accessible
by
bus,
and
Mountain
View,
Pahoa
and
Pahala
are
all
only
covered
by
one
bus
route.
The
bus
route
connectivity
to
the
two
major
airports
is
limited
as
well.
These
findings
are
one
important
factor
for
evaluating
overall
network
efficiency.
Other
considerations
should
include
redundancy
in
routes,
scheduling,
and
demand
for
inter-­?town
and
intra-­?town
service.
We
examine
technologies
available
for
gathering
data
on
these
considerations
in
the
OPTIMIZING
PUBLIC
TRANSIT
WITH
TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS
section
starting
on
page
47.

Figure
3-­?12

41|

P a g e

Figure
4-­?13

42|

P a g e

LIMITATIONS
OF
ANALYSIS

Data
acquisition
is
the
major
issue
in
creating
accurate
and
useful
maps
and
producing
relevant
analysis.
Different
recreation
sites
can
generate
vastly
different
annual
numbers
of
visitors.
For
instance,
Volcanoes
National
Park
gets
a
lot
more
visitors
than
the
much
smaller
Onekahakaha
Beach
Park
in
Hilo.
We
were
able
to
get
the
annual
number
of
visitors
of
national
parks
and
state
parks,
but
this
data
was
lacking
for
most
of
smaller
recreation
sites
(the
annual
visitor
data
does
not
exist
as
visitors
are
not
tracked
in
many
of
these
sites).
National
Parks
and
State
Parks
are
labeled
separately
to
better
show
those
recreation
sites
on
the
Island
for
which
we
have
visitation
data.

Likewise,
one
business
may
employ
1,000
people,
while
another
may
employ
only
10.
The
data
of
the
number
of
employees
for
all
businesses
of
the
island
was
difficult
to
obtain.
As
a
result,
we
developed
the
map
of
work
hubs
just
based
on
their
locations.
In
fact,
getting
locations
of
all
the
businesses
was
in
itself
also
quite
difficult,
given
the
overall
number
of
businesses
is
more
than
20,000
with
no
single
public
database
storing
all
of
their
locations.
Instead,
we
chose
to
make
estimations
of
work
hub
distributions
based
on
the
most
popular
businesses
(based
on
Google
Analytics),
hoping
the
pattern
of
estimated
work
hubs
on
the
map
could
more
or
less
reflect
the
true
pattern
in
reality.

Continuous
updates
are
important
to
increase
the
accuracy
all
of
the
maps
and
should
be
undertaken
as
new
data
becomes
available.

CREATING
THESE
MAPS

Data
sources
and
contents,
data
processing
approaches
and
map-­?making
techniques
are
explained
in
the
Appendix
D.

43|

P a g e

5:
MAUI
COUNTY
-­?
A
PUBLIC
TRANSIT
CASE
STUDY

MAUI
COUNTY
PUBLIC
TRANSIT

Maui
County
was
chosen
as
a
case
study
because
of
the
similar
rural
nature
of
Maui
and
Hawai`i
Island,
relative
to
the
other
Hawaiian
Islands.
While
Maui
County
encompasses
four
islands,
only
the
island
of
Maui
has
a
public
transit
system.
The
very
first
public
bus
service
on
Maui
was
started
in
2002.

81

Today,
the
Maui
Department
of
Transportation
(DOT)
runs
the
system
in
the

County
government,
and
the
DOT
essentially
functions
as
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
on
Maui.
The
Maui
DOT
also
runs
paratransit,
which
is
a
flexible
transit
service
that
involves
demand
response
and
is
commonly
used
to
transport
ADA
passengers.
However,
paratransit
is
outside
of
the
realm
of
Hele-­?On
and
thusly
not
a
focus
of
investigation
in
this
report.
There
are
a
total
of
13
fixed
routes
along
with
four
routes
that
are
designated
as
commuter
service.
All
of
the
routes
are
contracted
out
to,
and
operated
by,
Roberts
Hawaii.
The
non-­?commuter
routes
have
standardized
schedules
that
run
throughout
the
day,
leaving
at
regular
intervals
of
0.5,
1,
or
1.5
hours.
The
commuter
routes
cater
to
the
working
schedules
of
resort
employees,
similar
to
some
of
the
longer
Hele-­?On
routes.
The
fares
are
similar
to
Hele-­?On
at
$2
per
ride,
$4
per
daily
pass,
and
$45
for
a
monthly
pass
with
discounts
for
students
and
seniors.

82

A
similar
system

operational
structure
exists
as
well,
with
the
management
done
by
the
government,
but
the
day-­?to-­?day
operation
of
the
routes
is
contracted
out.

83

A
couple
of
basic
differences
between

the
Maui
bus
system
and
Hele-­?On
are
that
Maui
has
bus
stop
signs
more
consistently,
and
the
presentation
of
route
maps
and
schedules
are
more
readable
(see
Figures
5-­?1
and
5-­?2).

84

Figure
5-­?1:
Maui
Bus
Schedule

From
http://www.mauicounty.gov

44|

P a g e

Figure
5-­?2:
Map
of
Maui
Bus
System

Most
of
Maui?s
route
analysis
and
updates
are
now
based
on
public
feedback,
which
often
comes
through
public
hearings.
The
simplicity
of
the
non-­?commuter
route
schedules,
with
regular
intervals,
is
cited
as
a
reason
for
not
having
pursued
GPS
technology.

MAUI
COUNTY
SHORT
RANGE
TRANSIT
PLAN

Maui
County
released
a
short-­?range
transit
plan
in
2005.
At
this
stage,
the
bus
system
was
still
in
relative
infancy
with
three
routes
run
by
Roberts
Hawaii
and
only
six
fixed
routes
in
total.
As
a
result,
much
of
this
transit
plan
focused
on
planning
and
implementing
expansions
to
their
services.
The
report
was
prepared
by
Urbitran
Associates,
which
was
a
consulting
firm
that
specializes
in
urban
transit
planning,
but
has
since
been
bought
out
by
AECOM.

85,86

In
order
to

identify
areas
of
need
for
bus
service,
a
scoring
system
was
used
with
demographic
variables
to
create
a
?transit
needs
index.?
The
variables
considered
were:
1)
population
density;
2)
employment
density;
3)
median
household
income;
4)
disability
status;
5)
age.
Some
maps
were
provided
for
each
of
these,
including
an
Employment
Density
map
(see
Figure
5-­?3).

From
http://www.mauicounty.gov/

45|

P a g e

Figure
5-­?3:
Maui
Employment
Density
Map

87

Within
each
category,
neighborhoods
were
scored
in
a
range
of
1-­?5.
Summing
up
the
scores
then
allowed
for
a
map
to
be
created
with
differing
shades
for
ranges
of
transit
needs
scores
(see
Figure
5-­?4).

Figure
5-­?4:
Maui
Transit
Need
Map

88

46|

P a g e

Other
considerations
were
made
for
major
destinations
ranging
from
shopping
and
recreation
to
senior
citizen
centers,
hotels,
and
medical
facilities.
A
proactive
stakeholder
engagement
strategy
was
used
as
well,
including
interviews,
drop-­?in
sessions
with
passengers
and
drivers,
public
workshops,
and
comment
forms.

89

As
for
technological
recommendations,
one
key
suggestion
was
for
ridership
data
to
be
collected
via
some
sort
of
counter
system,
which
would
allow
for
more
effective
tracking;
this
includes
breaking
down
data
by
route,
time
of
day,
trip,
and
passenger
type.
This
information
would
be
valuable
for
future
route
and
system
planning
along
with
analyzing
usage
of
current
routes.
Along
those
lines,
Urbitran
recommended
replacing
the
manual
fare
boxes
with
an
electronic
fare
payment
system
to
improve
system
efficiency.
Other
recommendations
for
future
additions
to
the
public
transit
system
were
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL)
and
real-­?time
public
information
and
displays,
or
Traveler
Information
Systems
(TIS).
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
suggestions
were
made
in
January
of
2005.
While
none
of
these
upgrades
have
been
made,
most
of
them
are
being
investigated
by
the
County
government.

TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY
EMPLOYED
BY
MAUI

A
couple
of
technologies
that
are
currently
used
by
Maui
are
Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)
and
Google
Transit.
From
speaking
to
one
of
the
GIS
specialists
in
the
Maui
government,
the
initial
development
of
the
GIS
route
maps
required
?a
good
amount
of
effort,?
while
making
updates
is
relatively
easy.
One
of
the
lessons
learned
by
Maui
in
developing
GIS
maps
is
that
it
is
particularly
helpful
to
have
people
working
on
the
GIS
aspects
who
understand
the
transit
side
as
well
as
people
who
understand
the
GIS
side
working
on
the
transit
aspects,
for
quality?s
sake.

90

Camera
systems
are
also
currently
in
use,
which
have
helped
police
investigating
incidents
such
as
vandalism.
While
they
did
not
purchase
the
full
GPS
option
that
came
along
with
the
cameras,
they
do
get
warnings
for
events
such
as
accidents
or
speeding.
While
current
ridership
data
collection
is
done
manually,
there
have
been
talks
to
move
towards
a
technological
solution
for
such
information
gathering.
Reasons
cited
for
deciding
to
look
into
this
include
efficiency
on
the
buses,
as
well
as
allowing
for
better
management
of
the
system.
The
County
government
is
also
looking
into
the
acquisition
of
GPS.

91

47|

P a g e

COMPARING
HAWAI`I
AND
MAUI

Based
on
the
data,
Maui
has
a
larger
bus
system
than
Hawai`i
Island.
The
ridership
is
approximately
double
that
of
Hawai`i,
and
it
is
growing
at
a
faster
rate
as
well
(see
the
Table
5-­?1).

Table
5-­?1:
Hawai'i
and
Maui
Ridership
(in
millions)

Year

Hawai`i
Ridership

92

Maui
Ridership

93

2012

1.32

2.7

2011

1.15

2.3

2010

1.06

2.14

2009

0.91

2.01

2008

0.82

1.5

2007

0.73

Not
available

2006

0.71

Not
available

Correspondingly,
Maui
spends
much
more
on
its
bus
system
than
Hawai`i,
and
this
gap
grows
even
larger
when
viewed
on
a
per
resident
basis
(See
Table
5).
The
population
data
shown
is
for
2010,
but
the
operational
budgets
used
were
the
actual
budgets
for
2012
in
order
to
match
up
with
the
most
recent
ridership
data
available.
The
budget
number
used
for
Maui
does
not
include
paratransit
funding
in
order
to
allow
for
a
more
accurate
comparison.
The
source
for
the
budget
data
comes
from
the
2014
operating
budgets
for
each
county.
Within
these
documents,
actual
budgets
for
2012
were
used
for
the
purpose
of
this
analysis.
Both
budgets
are
actual,
as
opposed
to
proposed,
budget
numbers,
and
they
are
operational,
as
opposed
to
capital
expenditures.
This
allows
for
a
more
accurate
measurement
across
the
transit
agencies
that
would
not
be
swayed
by
one
agency
or
the
other
making
significant
investments
in
increasing
their
vehicle
fleets.
Another
conclusion
that
can
be
drawn
is
the
Maui
system
has
a
passenger
board
more
frequently
in
general
than
the
Hawai`i
system,
and
a
likely
explanation
for
this
is
that
Hele-­?On
has
a
greater
portion
of
long,
commuter-­?type
routes.
Additionally,
Maui
spends
over
four
times
more
per
vehicle-­?mile
traveled,
meaning
their
system
may
not
be
as
efficient,
although
the
conclusion
cannot
necessarily
be
drawn
that
they
spend
more
per
passenger-­?mile
traveled.

Table
5-­?2:
Hawai'i
and
Maui
Transit
Data
Comparison

Hawai`i
County

Maui
County

Population

189,191

94

144,444

95

Transit
Operational
Spending

$2,765,720

96

$6,977,500

97

Per
Capita
Expenses

$14.62

$48.31

Ridership
(#
of
Boardings)

1,315,222

98

2,703,411

99

Cost
per
Rider

$2.10

$2.58

Cost
per
Vehicle-­?Mile

$1.04

$4.27

Miles
per
Boarding

2.021

0.605

48|

P a g e

CONCLUSION

Obviously,
differences
do
exist
between
the
two
islands,
but
because
of
the
similarities,
some
of
what
has
been
successfully
utilized
on
Maui
can
also
be
applied
on
Hawai`i
Island,
and
lessons
that
Maui
has
learned
along
the
way
should
be
taken
advantage
of
by
Hele-­?On.
Some
simple
upgrades
to
Hele-­?On
that
could
be
made
are
improving
the
visual
appeal
and
clarity
of
route
maps
and
schedules.
In
looking
to
expand
service,
creating
an
objective
scoring
system
could
help
with
the
ideal
placement
of
routes
in
order
to
maximize
societal
benefit
and
minimize
costs.
Since
Hele-­?On
is
much
more
mature
today
than
Maui?s
system
was
at
the
time
of
the
Short
Range
Transit
Plan,
perhaps
they
can
use
that
strategy
in
combination
with
any
requests
for
additional
service
in
order
to
minimize
the
amount
of
time
that
must
be
spent
analyzing
areas
into
which
expanding
service
would
not
yield
significant
benefits.
In
terms
of
technology,
Maui
is
not
a
leader
amongst
public
transit
agencies,
but
they
have
been
at
least
somewhat
innovative
with
their
maps
and
Google
Transit,
and
Maui
is
looking
to
invest
in
additional
technology
solutions
to
improve
the
efficiency
of
their
system.
Lastly,
Maui
outspends
Hele-­?On
on
its
bus
system
and
has
over
double
the
ridership.
Overall,
the
emphasis
on
public
transit
appears
to
be
more
significant
on
Maui.

49|

P a g e

6:
THE
CASE
FOR
IMPROVING
THE
TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
OF
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

OVERCOMING
THE
TRANSPORTATION
CHALLENGES

Transportation
on
Hawai`i
Island
is
complicated
and
presents
great
challenges.
There
is
rising
and
more
complex
demand
for
public
transit
service,
operational
costs
are
increasing,
and
resources
are
limited.
In
recent
years,
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
(MTA)
has
persistently
worked
towards
expanding
its
Hele-­?On
services
and
providing
residents
with
suitable
transportation
options
and
an
improved
experience.
However,
the
Agency
still
faces
many
challenges
to
expand
while
maintaining
high
quality
service.
At
the
same
time
the
Island?s
traffic
is
getting
worse
according
to
locals,
fuel
expenses
are
a
huge
burden
and
vehicle
carbon
emissions
are
naturally
increasing,
as
many
people
commute
alone
in
their
personal
vehicles.

In
the
following
sections
we
will
evaluate
a
number
of
alternatives
in
order
to
provide
some
recommendations
for
dealing
with
these
issues.
In
Section
6
we
will
focus
on
technology
investments
for
the
Hele-­?On
public
transportation
system.
In
Section
7,
we
will
discuss
private
sector
investments
that
could
provide
alternative,
cost-­?effective
ways
to
commute
on
Hawai`i
Island.

THE
TECHNOLOGY
VALUE
PROPOSITION
FOR
HELE-­?ON

We
have
identified
two
overarching
areas
of
opportunity
that
can
facilitate
the
transition
to
a
more
economically,
socially
and
environmentally
sustainable
mass
transit
system
for
Hawai`i
Island.
The
following
graphic
introduces
these
two
areas,
the
different
segments
in
which
they
may
be
targeted,
and
the
potential
benefits
they
could
provide.
We
believe
that
focusing
on
employing
technologies
that
improve
the
efficiency
of
the
current
system
and
also
increase
customer
service
offerings
will
help
the
MTA
achieve
their
goals
of
expansion,
while
minimizing
costs
and
maintaining
their
high
level
of
service.

50|

P a g e

Figure
6-­?1:
Areas
of
Opportunity
for
Implementing
Technology

In
Section
7,
we
will
also
explore
how
rural
mass
transit
agencies
across
the
United
States
are
implementing
this
technology
to
enhance
their
operations.
We
will
go
through
available
technologies
and
how
they
can
benefit
Hawai`i?s
Hele-­?On
system,
and
analyze
two
rural
transit
case
studies
in
which
some
of
these
technologies
have
been
applied
successfully.
Finally,
we
will
determine
which
of
the
analyzed
technologies
will
have
the
biggest
potential
positive
impact
for
the
County
of
Hawai`i
Mass
Transit
Agency,
Hele-­?On
and
its
passengers
and
provide
an
overview
of
potential
vendors.

PRIVATE
INVESTMENTS
IN
TRANSIT
INFRASTRUCTURE
OF
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

While
public
transit
remains
a
key
issue
for
the
future
growth
and
mobility
of
the
Hawai`i
County,
our
analysis
has
shown
that
a
substantial
majority
of
riders
hail
from
low-­?income
communities,
forgoing
automobile
transportation
due
to
its
high
cost
of
consumption
relative
to
income.
For
this
reason,
we
believe
there
is
a
great
need
for
private
investments
in
innovative
alternative
modes
of
transportation
that
serve
those
that
do
not
use
the
public
transit
system.
Additionally,
alternative
ridesharing
networks
or
vanpool
systems
targeted
towards
middle-­?income
residents
and
(possibly)
tourists
offer
commuter
incentives
beyond
simply
the
cost
of
travel.

Section
8
outlines
our
analysis
of
ridesharing
and
vanpool
networks
and
provides
our
suggestions
for
best
practices
for
implementing
them
on
Hawai`i
Island.
We
weigh
the
merits
of
a)
introducing
an
existing
rideshare
network
onto
the
island;
b)
establishing
a
public-­?private
partnership
to
create
a
rideshare
network
unique
to
the
island;
or
c)
alternative
frameworks
for
implementing
a
vanpool
network.
In
addition,
we
discuss
possible
funding
channels,
as
well
as
offer
a
possible
business
model
that
examines
how
uniquely
partnered
rideshare
networks
might
function
on
Hawai`i
Island.

51|

P a g e

7:
OPTIMIZING
PUBLIC
TRANSIT
WITH
TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS

TECHNOLOGY
IN
MASS
TRANSIT

Technology
has
been
used
in
multiple
forms
and
for
various
purposes
related
to
public
transportation.
There
are
three
stages
of
trip.
For
each
of
these
stages,
the
customer
requires
different
information,
and
this
information
should
be
delivered
using
different
methods.
The
following
graphic
illustrates
this
process
and
the
different
ways
in
which
information
can
be
delivered
to
the
passenger.

Figure
7-­?1:
Stages
of
Transportation
and
Information
Delivery

Similarly
real-­?time
dynamic
passenger
information
systems
depend
on
three
main
stages:
data
collection,
data
integration
and
analysis,
and
the
delivery
of
the
information
to
passengers.
Effective
systems
rely
on
three
main
pieces
of
information:
1)
real-­?time
vehicle
location;
2)
GIS
maps;
and
3)
information
about
traffic
conditions
and
delays.

100

Being
aware
of
the
specific

information
requirements,
as
well
as
the
appropriate
methods
of
information
distribution
based
on
what
resources
customers
have
available
to
them,
is
an
important
aspect
of
incorporating
technology
into
public
transportation.
In
the
case
of
Hawai`i
Island,
it
will
be
important
to
keep
in
mind
the
types
of
technology
in
which
people
actually
have
access.
For
example,
according
to
a
survey
performed
by
Kanu
Hawai`i,
out
of
a
sample
of
100
people
only
around
30
use
a

52|

P a g e

?smartphone?;
therefore
smartphone
apps
are
currently
not
an
ideal
method
of
communication
in
Hawai`i.

101

EXISTING
TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS
AND
THEIR
BENEFITS

There
are
many
Intelligent
Transportation
System
(ITS)
technologies
that
have
successfully
penetrated
the
public
transportation
market,
but
not
all
are
currently
used
in
rural
public
transit.
A
2009
national
survey
of
rural
transit
agencies
investigated
technology
use,
obtaining
responses
from
451
different
agencies
across
45
states.
The
survey
analyzed
the
technologies
being
used,
as
well
as
the
technology?s
purpose
and
benefits.

102

A
summary
table
of
the

identified
technologies
is
included
below:

Table
7-­?1:
Available
Technologies
Technology
Name

Brief
Description

Selected
Benefits

Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL)

Tracking
of
vehicle
location

Vehicle
fuel
efficiency;
safety/security.

Computer
Automated
Scheduling
&
Dispatch
(CASD)
Software

Software
package
that
helps
automate
scheduling
and
dispatch,
particularly
for
demand
response
service

Operational
efficiency;
reporting/record
keeping

Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)

Spatial
data
containing
various
information;
often
required
for
other
technologies

Planning/scheduling;
maps

Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDTs)

Devices
with
screens
that
allow
for
communication
and
data
transfer/display

Vehicle
status
information;
reliable
communication

Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP)

Collection
and
processing
of
fares
is
done
electronically,
often
using
cards
of
some
form

Schedule
is
available
through
Google
Maps
and
has
trip
planner
capabilities

Passenger
convenience;
live
updates
can
be
incorporated

There
are
a
wide
variety
of
benefits
that
can
be
garnered
from
ITS
technologies.
In
general,
some
benefits
of
implementing
ITS
in
Hawai`i
include
operational
efficiency,
economic
productivity,
a
reduction
in
energy
use
and
environmental
impacts,
convenience
and
comfort
for
users
through
information
availability
and
awareness,
and
safety
and
security
through
improved
driving
behavior.

103

More
specific
benefits
associated
with
certain
technology
types

will
be
discussed
below.

53|

P a g e

AUTOMATIC
VEHICLE
LOCATION

One
relatively
common
technology
is
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL).
The
specific
method
can
vary,
but
the
most
common
one
uses
Global
Positioning
System
(GPS)
technology,
which
requires
on-­?vehicle
technology
to
determine
the
location
of
each
vehicle.

104

Sometimes
satellite-­?

based
AVL
systems
are
not
available
in
rural
areas,
so
this
could,
but
does
not
necessarily,
present
an
obstacle
for
Hele-­?On.

105

The
reported
purposes
of
AVL
include
dispatching,
service

quality,
safety,
customer
information,
scheduling,
and
communication,
among
others.
One
of
the
related
benefits
of
AVL
is
that
emergency
response
times
are
reduced.

106,107

AVL
also
allows

transit
agencies
to
monitor
their
vehicles
to
ensure
they
are
on-­?schedule,
which
can
help
with
planning
as
well
as
dealing
with
customer
grievances.

108

Beyond
simply
dealing
with
complaints,

customer
relations
are
often
improved
as
well
for
agencies
that
add
AVL
technology.

109

In
terms

of
financials,
companies
that
use
GPS
technology
save
an
average
of
$5,484
per
employee
per
year.
Furthermore,
the
installation
of
GPS
systems
resulted
in
a
reduction
in
fuel
costs
by
13.2%
on
average,
and
the
majority
of
these
reductions
were
through
minimizing
speeding
and
time
spent
idling.

110

Beyond
these
benefits,
AVL
can
facilitate
the
implementation
of
other

technologies,
as
the
data
collected
can
be
used
for
many
different
purposes.

COMPUTER-­?AIDED
SCHEDULING
AND
DISPATCH

Another
commonly
used
technology
is
Computer-­?Aided
Scheduling
and
Dispatch
(CASD)
software.
These
packages
vary
in
exactly
what
they
offer,
but
generally
they
streamline
operations
by
automating
a
transit
agency?s
scheduling
and
dispatch.
This
is
particularly
useful
for
demand-­?response
service,
which
could
be
useful
if
the
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
decides
to
pursue
vanpool
networks
(which
we
will
discuss
in
Section
7).
The
primary
uses,
however,
are
for
reporting
and
record
keeping,
as
well
as
scheduling.

111

GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS

Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)
are
another
application
of
technology
commonly
used
within
rural
transport.
While
GIS
has
many
different
applications,
the
two
most
common
uses
of
GIS
are
for
scheduling
and
operations.
GIS
can
be
useful
for
Hele-­?On
because
it
can
assist
in
the
management
and
communication
of
large
amounts
of
collected
data
through
GPS
or
other
methods,
and
it
can
do
so
in
a
visually
appealing
manner
like
a
detailed
map.
It
is
also
helpful
as
a
planning
tool
since
it
can
include
demographic,
economic,
and
road
network
data
that
can
improve
travel
demand
modeling.

112

MOBILE
DATA
TERMINALS

Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDTs)
allow
for
non-­?vocal
communication
between
vehicle
drivers
and
the
transit
agency.
They
are
installed
in
the
vehicles
and
can
communicate
information
such
as
vehicle
location
and
performance
and
passenger
counts.
Because
MDTs
rely
on
the
collection
of

(

Source:
US
DOT)

54|

P a g e

a
number
of
types
of
data,
they
are
often
integrated
with
other
forms
of
technology.
For
example,
in
order
to
communicate
vehicle
location,
MDTs
would
need
to
be
integrated
with
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL).
Similarly,
integration
between
MDTs
and
Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP)
systems
would
allow
for
the
communication
of
passenger
counts.
The
primary
uses
of
MDTs
are
to
identify
vehicle
location
or
passenger
boarding
and
drop-­?off.
MDTs
can
also
relay
information
about
a
specific
vehicle?s
mechanical
status,
which
is
useful
to
determine
when
preventative
maintenance
is
necessary.

113

Additionally,
they
are
generally
a
more
reliable

form
of
communication
than
voice,
which
can
be
particularly
useful
on
Hawai`i
where
there
are
gaps
in
cell
phone
coverage.

114

ELECTRONIC
FARE
PAYMENT

There
are
multiple
varieties
of
Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP)
systems,
but
they
all
assist
with
both
the
collection
and
processing
of
fare
payments
and
can
provide
Automated
Passenger
Counting
(APC)
and
other
trip
information.
Oftentimes
they
use
cards
or
tickets
of
some
form,

which
use
a
magnetic
stripe,
bar
code,
or
Radio
Frequency
Identification
(RFID)
technology.
RFID
technology
allows
for
information
to
be
communicated
by
simply
placing
the
card
near
a
sensor,
and
it
is
often
referred
to
as
smart
card
technology.
In
the
survey,
all
of
the
agencies
that
use
EFP
reported
using
magnetic
stripe
cards
or
tickets,
while
25%
also
use
smart
cards
and
12%
use
barcodes.

115

EFP
systems

eliminate
the
driver?s
responsibility
of
handling
cash
and
the
corresponding
losses
that
come
with
the
task.
Additionally,
ridership
can
be
automatically
tracked,
and
when
integrated
with
an
AVL
system
the
ridership
data
can
be
location-­?specific
for
boarding.
Boarding
speed
is
increased
as
well,
which
can

improve
convenience
for
passengers,
and
result
in
increased
satisfaction
and
ridership
through
increased
customer
loyalty.

116

TRAVELER
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS

Traveler
Information
Systems
(TIS)
encompass
a
wide
range
of
technologies
that
deliver
information
to
passengers.
These
can
be
divided
up
by
the
different
stages
of
a
trip,
previously
discussed.
Pre-­?trip
information
can
be
made
available
to
users
via
the
internet
or
phone,
and
should
include
trip
planning
tools,
as
well
as
both
static
and
real-­?time
information
related
to
bus
routes
and
schedules.
During
the
trip,
both
variable
message
signs
and
audible
announcements
can
be
employed.
While
mobile
telephone
companies
claim
to
have
cellular
phone
coverage
almost
everywhere
on
the
entire
island,
we
realize
that
this
is
not
true
in
all
parts
of
the
island
as
there
are
gaps
due
to
geographic
characteristics.
However,
diversifying
the
modes
of
communication
in
which
the
information
is
delivered
can
solve
this
problem
and
reach
more
people.
The
primary
benefit
of
TIS
is
to
improve
service
quality
and
passenger
experience
through
predictability,
reliability
and
ease
of
use.
For
example,
an
experiment
at
a
bus
station
in

(

Source:
Lehman
Center)

55|

P a g e

London
found
that
waiting
times
were
perceived
to
be
lower
by
passengers
simply
by
providing
real
time
information
about
bus
arrivals
at
the
stop.

117

This
provides
further
evidence
that

customer
satisfaction
could
be
improved
by
incorporating
technology
into
Hele-­?On.

118

HISTORIC
ADOPTION
BY
RURAL
TRANSIT
AGENCIES

The
Table
7-­?2
shows
the
usage
rates
of
the
previously
discussed
technologies
amongst
the
rural
public
transit
agencies
that
responded
to
the
national
survey
we
mentioned
previously.
Agencies
that
used
one
technology
were
more
likely
to
use
other
technologies.

119

Table
7-­?2:
Current
and
Prospective
Adoption
Rates

Technology
Type

Percent
That
Currently
Use
Of
Remaining,
Percent
Will
Use

In
5
Years

Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL)

6%

45%

Computer-­?Aided
Scheduling
and
Delivery
(CASD)
Software

33%

46%

Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)

25%

43%

Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDTs)

9%

31%

Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP)

2%

32%

Traveler
Information
Systems
(TIS)

4%

20%

While
these
rates
may
seem
extremely
low,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
majority
of
the
rural
agencies
surveyed
are
significantly
smaller
than
the
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency.
Within
the
survey,
the
larger
an
agency
was
(measured
by
vehicle-­?hours
of
service,
ridership,
fleet
size,
or
budget)
the
more
likely
they
were
to
use
technology.
The
adoption
rates
for
the
largest
agencies
included
in
the
survey,
which
Hele-­?On
far
exceeds
in
each
case,
are
shown
in
the
table
below.

120

Table
7-­?3:
Technology
Adoption
Rates

Technology

1,000,000+

Vehicle-­?Hours

of
Service

150,000+

Passenger
Trips

(Ridership)

20+
Vehicles
in

Fleet

$1.5
million+

Annual
Budget

AVL

38%

40%

42%

38%

CASD

70%

47%

64%

55%

GIS

52%

51%

53%

55%

MDTs

26%

25%

30%

22%

EFP

5%

8%

2%

6%

TIS

7%

11%

5%

8%

Hawai`i
values

1.15
million

121

56
vehicles

122

~$3.5
million

123

56|

P a g e

A
range
of
technology
options
exist,
and
each
of
them
have
different
benefits,
but
when
multiple
options
are
incorporated
together,
additional
benefits
can
be
created
that
do
not
exist
from
the
options
by
themselves.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
joint
adoption
of
technologies
to
occur
with
AVL,
GIS,
and
MDTs.
Accordingly,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
transportation
technology
companies
to
offer
multiple
technology
solutions
in
a
bundled
package
as
technologies
are
complementary
to
each
other.
As
more
technologies
are
properly
incorporated,
the
value
received
from
them
is
exponential.

GOOGLE
TRANSIT

While
it
was
not
included
in
the
survey
of
rural
transit
agencies,
Google
Transit
is
an
easily
achievable
target
for
Hele-­?On.
Incorporating
Hele-­?On
into
Google
Transit
can
provide
benefits
both
to
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
as
well
as
current
and
potential
future
riders.
Google
Maps
is
the
world?s
largest
mapping
website
and
is
accessible
in
over
forty
languages.
By
including
all
of
Hele-­?On?s
routes,
riders
will
not
have
to
pick
and
choose
the
best
route
on
their
own.
Trip
planning
will
be
available
through
Google
Maps,
both
on
desktop
and
mobile
devices,
so
passengers
can
simply
input
their
starting
point
and
desired
ending
point,
as
well
as
requested
times
of
departure
and/or
arrival,
and
they
will
be
provided
with
the
public
transit
options
that
best
meet
their
requirements.

124

This
trip
planner
tool
can
even
be
incorporated
into
the
Hele-­?

On
website.
A
mass
transit
agency
in
Virginia,
Hampton
Roads
Transit,
that
began
using
Google
Transit
previously
used
6-­?8
hours
of
employee
time
to
update
a
new
print
transit
schedule,
which
they
would
have
to
do
for
each
route,
often
multiple
times
per
year;
with
Google
Transit,
that
task
has
been
reduced
to
only
a
few
minutes.
They
also
improved
their
image
through
their
association
with
Google.

125

The
only
drawback
for
Google
Transit
is
that
it
is
not
designed
to

supply
information
about
demand
response
service,
a
major
service
offering
for
many
rural
transit
operators.
Hawai`i
County,
however,
relies
on
fixed-­?schedule
buses,
so
we
believe
the
system
has
a
lot
to
gain
from
this
relatively
simple
process.

Participating
in
Google
Transit
does
not
cost
anything
and
the
process
to
get
started
is
simple.
The
requirements
for
participating
in
Google
Transit
are
only
that
your
public
transit
service
operates
fixed
schedules
and
routes,
and
Hele-­?on
satisfies
these.

126

The
first
step
in
implementation
would
be
to
format
the
Hele-­?On
data
in
the
format
required
by
Google
(specifications
for
this
can
be
found
on
the
cited
website).

127

This
will
require
time

and/or
resources,
but
is
mostly
of
a
one-­?time
upfront
investment,
and
future
updates
will
be
much
less
time-­?intensive.
Additionally,
there
are
open
source
tools
available
to
expedite
this
process.

128

Examples
of
these
feeds
can
be
found
on
the
cited
website.

129

The
Northwest
Oregon

Transit
Alliance,
which
is
made
up
of
five
different
rural
transit
agencies,
developed
a
web-­?based
application
to
assist
in
the
process
of
integrating
rural
transit
agency
routes
and
schedules
with
Google
Transit
because
these
agencies
often
do
not
have
the
resources
available
to
hire
external
consultants
for
this
purpose.

130

Once
this
data
is
created,
it
must
be
run
through
a
validator,
and

then
the
routes
can
be
previewed
to
make
sure
the
data
has
been
correctly
interpreted.
The
next
steps
are
to
zip
the
data
file
and
host
the
feed
on
a
web
server,
from
which
Google
will
be

57|

P a g e

able
to
download
it.
At
that
point,
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
will
need
to
contact
Google
and
sign-­?up
for
the
partnership,
a
private
preview
will
be
setup
and
an
online
agreement
will
be
made.
Once
everything
is
functioning
satisfactorily,
Google
Transit
will
launch
its
Hele-­?On
segment.
While
Hele-­?On
would
first
need
to
be
integrated
with
Google
Transit,
Google
Transit
has
the
ability
to
include
Live
Transit
Updates
as
well.

131

The
Maui
DOT
reported
that
the
process
of
integrating
Google
Transit
was
not
at
all
difficult.
All
that
was
required
was
updating
a
spreadsheet
and
uploading
it
to
Google.

132

Based
on
their

experience,
we
estimate
that
the
data
conversion
would
cost
$7,500.
This
would
include
the
initial
conversion,
as
well
as
the
development
of
a
web
app
that
would
allow
for
easy
updates
as
routes
change.
If
Google
Transit
were
to
require
a
new
data
feed
specification,
then
this
conversion
could
be
worked
on
at
an
hourly
rate
of
$95.

133

All
in
all,
Google
Transit
is
likely
the

most
simple
of
all
potential
upgrades.

RURAL
TRANSIT
TECHNOLOGY
CASE
STUDIES

The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
demonstrate
that
the
employment
of
technology
has
been
useful
in
mass
transit
systems
and
specifically
in
rural
situations,
where
population
density
is
low
and
sparse.
While
we
did
not
find
specific
case
studies
of
island
mass
transit
systems
using
this
technology,
we
believe
the
cases
we
have
developed
present
certain
similarities
to
Hawai`i,
which
makes
them
pertinent
to
this
report.

CASE
STUDY
1:
MODOC
COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA

IMPLEMENTATION:

Modoc
County,
a
rural
frontier
county
in
California
with
fewer
than
six
people
per
square
mile,
was
a
pioneer
of
rural
transit
agencies
incorporating
Intelligent
Transportation
System
(ITS)
tools.
There
were
multiple
tools
installed
in
the
system
during
this
project,
but
the
ones
most
relevant
to
Hele-­?On
were
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL)
and
Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP),
as
well
as
Google
Transit
for
a
trip
planner
tool.
AVL/swipe
cards
allowed
for
automatic
collection
of
fares
as
well
as
ridership
data.
Modoc
County
was
the
first
rural
area
to
attempt
to
incorporate
Google
Transit,
and
they
did
so
successfully.

FINDINGS:

In
order
to
get
data
in
the
proper
format,
Modoc
County
hired
an
external
consultant,
the
Mary
Jaffe
Company.
The
process
was
a
learning
experience
that
could
be
used
by
fellow
rural
transit
agencies,
including
Hele-­?On,
in
their
own
future
implementation.
Unavailability
of
high
quality
route
maps
and
unreliability
of
internet
access
and
speeds
were
obstacles
encountered
by
Modoc
County.
Additionally,
they
found
that
it
was
important
to
make
a
contractor
prove
in
the
field
that
their
technology
can
apply
on
a
smaller
scale
than
is
typical,
as
opposed
to
simply
taking
the
contractor?s
word
for
it.
One
particularly
important
comment
was
that
?future
rural

58|

P a g e

ITS
projects
should
have
clear,
specific
milestones
that
can
be
accomplished
in
six
to
nine
months,?
which
fits
with
the
focus
on
short-­?term
solutions.

134

APPLICATION
TO
HAWAI`I
COUNTY:

One
significant
difference
between
Modoc
County?s
service
and
Hele-­?On
is
that
there
is
a
much
larger
emphasis
on
demand
response
transport
in
Modoc
County.
As
a
result,
only
the
parts
of
the
project
that
apply
to
fixed-­?route
service
were
included
in
this
analysis.
An
example
of
using
multiple
technologies
was
the
combination
of
AVL
and
EFP
to
allow
for
automatic
ridership
data
collection.
Additionally,
based
on
the
cooperation
between
Modoc
County
and
Google
Transit,
Google
has
revised
its
system
to
better
allow
for
the
incorporation
of
rural
transit
where
trips
are
less
frequent
than
hourly
or
even
daily.
This
ensures
that
most
of
the
issues
have
been
worked
out
for
Google
Transit
with
regard
to
rural
transit
operators,
so
the
process
should
be
smoother
for
Hele-­?On.
Still,
a
significant
investment
of
some
form,
either
time,
new
employee(s),
or
consultants
may
be
necessary
to
get
schedules
in
the
proper
data
format
for
Google
Transit.

CASE
STUDY
2:
POINCIANA,
FLORIDA

IMPLEMENTATION:

A
partnership
between
the
Central
Florida
Regional
Transportation
Authority
(LYNX)
and
Polk
County
Transit
Services
(PCTS)
resulted
in
the
implementation
of
a
rural
ITS
demonstration
project
in
Poinciana,
FL
from
2006-­?2007.
The
technologies
deployed
in
this
project
that
are
particularly
relevant
for
Hele-­?On
were
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL),
Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS),
Global
Positioning
Systems
(GPS),
and
Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDTs).

FINDINGS:

This
project
resulted
in
a
number
of
impacts
to
the
transit
system.
While
there
are
multiple
contributing
factors
to
this,
including
linking
a
flex-­?route
with
the
fixed-­?route
system,
overall
fixed-­?route
ridership
increased
24%
after
implementation.
Similarly,
total
transit
ridership
increased
27%.
Additionally,
customer
and
driver
satisfaction
were
both
improved
as
a
result
of
the
project.

Since
it
was
a
demonstration
project,
both
LYNX
and
PCTS
learned
some
important
lessons
along
the
way
that
can
be
used
by
future
adopters
of
technology,
including
Hele-­?On.
For
procurement,
it
is
crucial
to
make
sure
that
the
AVL
supplier
can
use
the
transit
operator?s
base
maps.
A
small
implementation
issue,
but
important
nonetheless,
is
that
the
GPS
antenna
needs
to
be
a
minimum
distance
away
from
the
radio
antenna
to
prevent
interference
(the
specific
distance
depends
on
the
technology
employed).
If
possible,
installing
the
GPS
receiver
and
MDT
in
close
proximity
helps
simplify
and
shorten
the
wiring
process,
but
it
is
also
important
to
make
sure
that
the
MDT
is
placed
in
a
location
that
will
prevent
boarding
passengers
from
damaging
it

59|

P a g e

accidentally.
Another
lesson
learned
during
implementation
is
that
there
needs
to
be
a
connection
between
the
MDT
and
the
vehicle?s
digital
odometer
in
order
to
get
the
AVL
system
to
function
properly,
and
this
process
proved
to
be
more
complicated
than
had
been
anticipated.
For
operations,
training
was
required
for
agency
employees
on
the
technology
being
implemented
which
increased
costs
of
the
agency.
As
an
example,
all
operating
employees
took
a
two-­?hour
training
class
on
using
the
MDTs.

APPLICATION
TO
HAWAI`I
COUNTY:

Similarly
to
Modoc
County,
demand
response
is
a
component
of
the
transit
service
provided
by
these
agencies,
but
it
is
not
nearly
as
significant
since
there
are
still
plenty
of
fixed
routes
that
the
agencies
operate.
Like
Hawai`i
County,
a
great
deal
of
riders
use
the
LYNX/PCTS
systems
to
commute
to
work;
41%
of
those
who
completed
a
ridership
survey
claimed
travel
to
work
as
a
purpose
for
traveling
via
public
transit.
Additionally,
there
was
a
wide
range
of
trip
lengths
reported,
ranging
from
0-­?15
minutes
to
over
2
hours.
The
survey
also
asked
how
the
riders
found
out
about
the
transit
services.
More
than
40%
responded
that
they
had
seen
a
transit
vehicle
on
the
street.
Almost
30%
stated
they
heard
about
the
availability
of
transit
services
from
a
friend.
While
the
lessons
that
LYNX
and
PCTS
learned
during
implementation
are
simple,
they
apply
in
all
settings
and
would
be
useful
in
making
the
future
process
smoother
for
Hele-­?On.

CUTTING
EDGE
RESEARCH

There
is
a
great
deal
of
relevant
research
related
to
new
and/or
cutting
edge
ideas
for
improving
rural
public
transit
through
technology.
One
pilot
program,
called
Bus
Coming,
uses
a
smartphone
system
integrated
with
Google
Maps
in
Trinidad
&
Tobago
and
allows
for
wayside
passengers
to
see
how
long
until
the
bus
arrives
at
their
specific
location,
as
opposed
to
how
long
until
it
gets
to
a
certain
stop.

135

This
idea
would
be
particularly
useful
to
Hele-­?On,
where

there
can
be
tens
of
miles
between
officially
listed
stops.
Additionally,
with
some
routes
running
service
before
sunrise,
it
would
improve
safety
for
passengers
catching
the
bus
in
the
middle
of
its
route
in
the
dark.
Another
similar
idea
is
a
system
in
which
riders
can
digitally
flag
the
bus,
alerting
the
drivers
that
they
are
waiting
for
them.

136

This
also
would
be
particularly
appropriate

for
Hele-­?On?s
long
routes,
especially
when
it
is
dark
out
and
bus
drivers
have
difficulty
spotting
passengers
along
the
side
of
the
road.

A
number
of
other
experiments
use
crowd-­?sourced
data
supplied
by
the
passengers
themselves.
Crowdsourcing
is
becoming
popular
as
a
way
in
which
companies
or
organizations
can
collect
desired
data
or
information
through
the
collaboration
of
a
large
group
of
people
who
are
willing
to
connect
digitally
through
their
phones
or
computers.
This
would
overcome
the
lack
of
infrastructure
present
for
obtaining
real
time
vehicle
location,
as
well
as
help
deliver
information
to
passengers.
To
get
around
this
challenge,
passengers?
smartphones
are
used
both
to
obtain
data
and
to
deliver
information.

137

One
example
of
using
crowd-­?sourced
data
is

Tiramisu,
an
Italian
app
that
provides
access
to
real-­?time
arrival
data
for
local
public
transit,

60|

P a g e

although
it
is
currently
only
used
in
urban
areas.

138

The
Informed
Rural
Passenger
project,
which

is
a
massive
research
project
investigating
technology
use
in
rural
transit,
is
being
carried
out
by
the
dot.rural
research
center
at
the
University
of
Aberdeen
and
has
investigated
using
crowd-­?sourced
data
as
well.
This
project
has
led
to
the
development
of
GetThere,
which
is
a
real-­?time
passenger
information
system
that
takes
data
from
multiple
sources
and
delivers
information
through
multiple
methods.
Passengers
are
one
of
the
sources
for
data,
and
all
of
the
others
used
are
open
data
sources.
GetThere
delivers
information
through
web
sites,
SMS
messages,
and
a
smartphone
app.
Since
cell
phone
service
is
unreliable
in
parts
of
rural
Scotland,
this
flexibility
in
delivery
method
is
crucial.

139

Even
with
this
limited
coverage,
the
pilot
of
GetThere
was
still

successful
at
identifying
bus
locations.
Other
examples
of
data
that
can
be
crowd-­?sourced
are
occupancy
levels
as
well
as
facilities
present
in
the
vehicle,
such
as
if
there
is
a
restroom
and
if
there
are
bike
racks
available.
When
dealing
with
crowd-­?sourced
data
some
issues
that
arise
include
privacy
and
security,
and
the
quality
must
be
monitored
as
well.

140

Because
there
are

similar
infrastructure
issues
that
must
be
overcome
on
Hawai`i
Island,
these
crowd-­?sourced
data
methods
could
prove
helpful.

CONCLUSIONS
ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY

There
are
multiple
reasons
why
these
technology
solutions
would
be
particularly
beneficial
when
applied
to
Hawai`i
Island.
There
is
significant
potential
for
operational
efficiency
improvements,
which
can
result
in
fuel
savings,
route
optimization
and
reduced
maintenance
cost.
Collecting
data
on
ridership,
driver
performance
and
commonly
used
stops
can
give
the
planning
department
full
visibility
of
their
system
operations,
which
is
necessary
for
determining
the
optimal
number
of
routes
and
buses
needed
to
serve
Hele-­?On
riders
effectively,
without
redundancy.
With
little
technology
currently
being
used
in
Hele-­?On,
the
opportunity
for
efficiency
improvements
could
be
even
larger.

Through
reliability,
predictability
and
clear
communication,
technology
can
help
the
customers
as
well.
It
can
make
current
riders?
experience
a
much
more
pleasant
one
and
could
also
bring
in
new
riders
that
are
not
fully
aware
of
or
do
not
yet
trust
the
public
transit
system,
boosting
ridership
and
revenues
and
potentially
reducing
operational
costs.
While
a
smartphone
can
be
useful
for
accessing
data
while
away
from
home,
not
all
people
in
Hawai`i
currently
use
smartphones.
However,
passengers
can
still
take
advantage
of
technology
solutions
by
either
using
the
Internet
on
computers
or
by
phone.
Since
the
demand
for
public
transit
in
Hawai`i
County
is
often
intermittent
and
related
to
work
schedules,
it
is
particularly
important
for
passengers
to
know
when
their
bus
will
be
arriving
because
the
next
bus
on
the
route
may
not
come
for
many
hours.
Since
travel
times
to
mass
transit
stops
tend
to
be
longer
in
rural
areas,
having
confidence
in
exactly
when
a
bus
will
arrive
can
help
passengers
plan
the
appropriate
amount
of
buffer
time
in
order
to
catch
it
without
arriving
too
early
and
wasting
time.

Since
expanding
public
transit
service
is
commonly
brought
up
at
public
meetings,
doing
it
in
the
proper
areas
would
likely
be
well
perceived
and
adopted.
We
have
identified
key
technologies

61|

P a g e

that
we
believe
will
be
most
beneficial
for
the
County
of
Hawai`i
Mass
Transit
Agency,
the
Hele-­?On
bus
system
and
its
passengers.

KEY
TECHNOLOGIES
FOR
HELE-­?ON

Automated
Passenger
Counting
(APC):
In
order
to
thoroughly
understand
which
routes
are
over
or
underserved
and
determine
ideal
routing,
sophisticated
ridership
data
is
crucial.
This
data
can
provide
valuable
insight
into
demand
patterns,
passenger
behavior,
duration
of
trips,
and
other
reference
points
to
properly
design
a
transit
system
that
effectively
serves
the
needs
of
its
customers
while
maintaining
operation
costs
low.
Reliable
data
can
determine
optimal
routes,
sizing
of
the
fleet
vehicles
for
each
route
(i.e.
a
van
versus
a
bus),
and
real
time
information
about
changes
in
demand
that
will
allow
easy
and
prompt
adjustment.
APC
can
be
included
with
an
Electronic
Fare
Payment
(EFP)
system
or
through
an
independent
system
of
sensors
at
the
bus
doors.

Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS),
Automatic
Vehicle
Location
(AVL)
and
Mobile
Data
Terminals
(MDT):
These
three
technologies
can
have
a
positive
impact
on
routing
and
fleet
efficiency,
as
well
as
operator
and
vehicle
performance;
the
greatest
impact
of
these
systems
would
be
felt
through
simultaneous
implementation,
as
they
are
complementary
to
one
another.
A
mix
of
these
can
result
in
significant
reductions
in
fuel
and
overhead
costs.
One
of
the
key
benefits
these
technologies
provide
is
fleet
visibility.
Because
Hele-­?On
will
be
able
to
track
its
entire
fleet
at
all
times,
routes
and
vehicles
can
be
used
and
allocated
optimally.
Driver
execution
can
also
be
tracked,
increasing
accountability.
Finally,
these
technologies
facilitate
easier
planning
and
more
efficient
operations.

Real-­?time
Passenger
Information
(RTPI):
A
subset
of
general
Traveler
Information
Systems
(TIS),
real
time
passenger
information
has
potential
to
improve
customer
service
and
satisfaction,
ultimately
increasing
ridership
and
willingness
to
pay.
When
a
potential
bus
rider
has
access
to
information
on
bus
routes
and
real-­?time
arrival
times,
the
stress
of
traveling
in
public
transportation
is
significantly
reduced.
Having
an
easy-­?to-­?use
mobile
phone
application,
computer
website,
or
text/call
center
that
can
provide
this
information
will
improve
the
rider?s
full
experience
and
could
attract
new
customers
while
making
current
ones
even
more
loyal.

ANALYSIS
OF
POTENTIAL
VENDORS

As
in
any
growing
market,
there
are
multiple
companies
offering
products
and
services
for
transportation
management
or
optimization
purposes.
We
performed
extensive
research
on
existing
companies
and
their
offerings.
This
analysis
can
serve
as
a
tool
for
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
to
determine
which
company
might
best
fit
Hele-­?On?s
requirements,
while
staying
within
the
County?s
budget
or
making
the
case
for
extra
funding
to
be
raised
via
public
or
private
investment.
Aside
from
economic
considerations,
an
ideal
vendor
should
be
able
to
provide
multiple
items
from
the
?Key
Technologies
for
Hele-­?On?
listed
above
and
present
customizable

62|

P a g e

solutions.
Additional
value
will
come
from
firms
with
products
designed
specifically
for
public
transportation
systems
and
previous
experience
with
rural
or
island-­?based
clients.

The
following
section
will
highlight
the
top
transportation
technology
companies
and
describe
their
product
and
service
offerings.
It
will
analyze
potential
benefits
and
implementation
costs,
and
list
some
examples
of
implementation
or
case
studies.
It
is
important
to
note
that
all
implementation
examples
were
provided
by
each
vendor
and
results
are
self-­?proclaimed.
Before
any
particular
vendor
is
contracted,
we
suggest
contact
their
customers
to
confirm
their
satisfaction
with
the
vendor.
It
is
equally
important
to
note
that
while
the
companies
provided
costs
of
implementation,
these
are
not
official
quotes
and
the
price
of
their
products
or
services
will
vary
depending
on
each
project
and
its
customized
solutions.
These
numbers
serve
as
an
approximation,
but
it
will
be
essential
for
the
County
to
contact
the
vendors
directly
to
receive
a
real
price
offering.
Cost
calculations
are
based
on
a
fleet
of
56
vehicles
(48
buses,
5
cutaway
vans
and
3
minivans).

141

ACTSOFT

ActSoft

142

is
a
custom
software
development
company
based
out
of
Tampa,
Florida.
The

company
specializes
in
tracking
fleets
and
optimizing
the
system
through
timekeeping,
dispatching
and
tracking
forms.
Its
main
fleet
management
product,
CometFleet

143

focuses
on

providing
tools
to
improve
routing,
reduce
downtime,
and
cut
costs.
CometFleet
is
composed
of
a
GPS
tracking
system
and
the
company?s
Comet
Suite
applications
to
provide
visibility
of
the
fleet
and
create
reports
to
identify
improper
use
of
vehicles
or
inefficient
behavior.

POTENTIAL
BENEFITS

? Reduced
fuel
and
overhead
costs
? Availability
of
location
data
for
fleet
vehicles
at
all
times
? Identification
of
idle
and
stop
times
? Can
be
used
to
improve
routing
and
eliminate
redundant
routes
? Reduced
downtime
and
unnecessary
wear
? Scheduled
maintenance
alerts

POTENTIAL
CONCERNS

? No
analysis
capabilities.
Analysis
would
have
to
be
performed
by
Hele-­?On
or
County
? No
previous
experience
with
work
on
islands
? Not
designed
specifically
for
mass
transit
systems
? More
appropriate
for
fleet
tracking
and
driver
supervision
? Does
not
provide
Traveler
Information
Systems

COSTS

ActSoft
works
on
24-­?
and
36-­?
month
term
contracts
and
a
month-­?to-­?month
payment.
A
one-­?time
licensing
fee
of
$100
is
required
and
the
monthly
payments
cover
the
equipment
rental

63|

P a g e

and
data
monitoring
and
access.
Hardware
installation
can
be
performed
by
the
customer
or
through
a
referred
installer.
Installation
services
typically
costs
a
total
of
around
$125.
However,
installation
is
relatively
simple
and
takes
approximately
30
minutes
per
vehicle.

Additional
resources
needed"
Because
ActSoft
does
not
provide
any
analytics
services,
it
would
likely
be
necessary
to
hire
a
specialist
to
do
the
routing,
fleet
and
passenger
optimization
analysis.
The
hiring
and/or
training
of
a
Data
Manager
should
also
be
taken
into
consideration.

EXAMPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION

STAR
Transit
is
a
demand
response
public
transportation
company
for
Kaufman
and
Rockwell
Counties
in
Texas.
STAR
uses
ActSoft?s
Comet
Fleet
software
for
mileage
tracking,
driver
behavior
monitoring,
and
maintenance
reports
and
reminders.
Since
it
installed
the
software,
the
company
has
increased
fuel
efficiency
by
50%
and
is
saving
hundreds
of
dollars
per
month

144

.

Floyd
County
SchoolsTransportation
Department
is
in
charge
of
transporting
students
safely
for
all
school-­?related
activities,
as
well
as
communicating
with
parents
if
any
issues
or
concerns
arise.
ActSoft
provided
visibility
of
vehicle
location
and
therefore
reduced
safety
concerns
and
complaints
from
parents.
The
installation
of
this
software
allowed
Floyd
County
Schools
to
improve
their
operation
efficiency
and
to
properly
follow
the
location
of
dispatched
buses
and
children

145

CONTACT
INFORMATION

http://www.actsoft.com/

(888)
732-­?6638

NEXTBUS

NextBus

146

is
a
real-­?time
passenger
information
solutions
provider
that
offers
a
GPS
enabled

website
for
mobile
users
to
identify
the
nearest
bus
stops
and
provides
up-­?to-­?the-­?minute
arrival
times.
Information
is
made
available
through
the
Internet,
SMS
text
or
a
phone
call,
which
enables
all
types
of
users
to
access
the
service.
NextBus
currently
serves
over
135
transit
agencies
and
more
than
300
million
riders
every
year.

POTENTIAL
BENEFITS

? Interface
is
easy
to
use
and
allowed
for
easier
planning
and
transportation
? Increased
visibility
of
the
transit
system
for
passengers
with
live
mapping
of
rider,
stop

? No
focus
on
fleet
optimization
? No
focus
on
passenger
or
route
tracking
? Does
not
solve
most
of
Hele-­?On?s
needs
on
its
own.
? Requires
investment
in
other
technologies,
like
GPS
to
get
required
data
? No
previous
experience
on
islands
? No
previous
experience
in
rural
or
dispersed
areas
? Not
very
responsive,
no
contact
phone
number
available

COSTS

Unfortunately,
NextBus
did
not
respond
to
our
inquiries
and
therefore
cost
information
is
not
available.
However,
on
their
website
they
claim
having
customizable
options
to
fit
any
budget.

EXAMPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION

NextBus
serves
a
broad
range
of
transit
systems
in
North
America,
from
small
towns
and
colleges
to
large
cities.
Some
of
its
biggest
successes
include:
LA
Metro,
San
Francisco?s
Municipal
Transportation
Agency,
Chapel
Hill
Transit,
and
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology
(MIT).

CONTACT
INFORMATION

http://www.nextbus.com/

SYNCROMATICS

Based
in
Los
Angeles,
California,
Syncromatics

147

is
focused
on
providing
Intelligent

Transportation
Systems
(ITS).
It
serves
fixed-­?route
transit
clients
in
university,
municipal,
and
private
markets
and
currently
serves
the
entire
fleet
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
and
has
customers
in
30
states
in
the
United
States.

Unfortunately,
Syncromatics
has
not
responded
to
our
inquiries
and
therefore
no
cost
data
is
available.

EXAMPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION

City
of
Los
Angeles

148

:
With
incredibly
varied
traffic
patterns,
a
large
number
of
pedestrians,
and

regular
special
events,
downtown
LA
was
a
highly
unpredictable
environment
for
transit
buses.
Syncromatics
provided
real-­?time
operations
tools
to
solve
the
multiple
challenges
this
environment
created.
For
this
particular
client
and
its
needs,
Syncromatics
developed
a
new
software
program
that
allowed
both
dispatchers
and
drivers
to
identify
the
relative
spacing
of
buses.

University
of
South
Florida

149

:
With
a
large
and
complex
transit
operation
system,
the
University

of
Florida
required
an
all-­?inclusive
solution
to
their
operation
issues.
Syncromatics
provided
a
real-­?time
passenger
information
system
(RTPI),
automated
passenger
counters
(APC),
mobile
data
terminals
(MDT),
and
in-­?depth
reporting
and
dispatching
functions.
This
system
has
generated
over
200,000
hits
per
month
from
students,
faculty
and
staff.

safety,
and
compliance.
Its
Fleet
Director
software
is
aimed
at
fleet
management
issues
and
requires
no
up-­?front
cost.
They
provide
unlimited
training
and
support
as
well
as
a
lifetime
guarantee
on
hardware.
They
have
worked
with
more
than
20,000
fleets
around
the
world.

? No
previous
experience
on
islands
? No
previous
experience
in
rural
or
dispersed
areas
? Less
focus
on
rider
experience

COSTS

Teletrac
provides
free
installation,
web
training,
lifetime
warrantee
and
unlimited
service.
Equipment
rent
and
subscription
to
their
system
requires
two
month
down
payment
and
a
one-­?time
$95.00
process
fee.

Price"
$39.00
per
vehicle
per
month
+
process
fee

Approximate
investment
for
Hele-­?On
(for
3
years)"
$78,720

Additional
resources
needed"
Teletrac
can
help
Hele-­?On
with
tracking
and
efficiency
but
they
do
not
provide
analysis
or
passenger
information
systems,
so
an
additional
investment
would
be
required
for
those
separately.
Further,
these
costs
are
for
their
basic
tracking
software
package,
there
are
additional
added
value
products
that
could
be
considered
for
more
sophisticated
hardware
or
services
but
would
require
additional
investment.

EXAMPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION

A
recent
survey
performed
by
Teletrac
to
all
supported
fleets
using
Fleet
Director
showed
a
30%
reduction
in
fuel
consumption,
a
15%
reduction
of
overtime,
a
12%
reduction
of
unauthorized
vehicle
use
and
a
12%
increase
in
productivity.

CONTACT
INFORMATION

http://www.teletrac.com/

1-­?800-­?TELETRAC

TRAPEZE

Trapeze
Group
provides
transportation
solutions
through
technology,
systems
and
services
in
North
America.
The
?Transportation
Solutions?
department
within
the
company
focuses
on
public
transportation
management
to
improve
service
quality,
control
costs
and
optimize
the
fleet
resource
productivity.

67|

P a g e

Trapeze
Group
has
experience
working
with
small
and
dispersed
fleets
and
offers
customization
options
to
serve
diverse
fleets?
individual
needs.
Its
product
and
service
lines
span
from
asset
management
and
fuel
efficiency
to
routing,
ridership
and
operations
analysis
of
current
fleet.

Unfortunately
Trapeze
Group
has
not
yet
provided
pricing
information
to
the
team.
The
quote
order
is
in
place
but
we
have
not
had
any
response.

EXAMPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION

Regina
Transit
is
the
public
transportation
system
in
Regina,
Saskatchewan,
Canada.
The
transit
agency
dealt
with
inefficiencies
and
problems
with
manual
dispatching
and
recording.
Dispatchers
were
lacking
real
time
information
and
location
status
of
their
fleet.
The
Regina
fleet
consisted
of
30
vehicles
to
serve
200,000
inhabitants
and
performed
an
average
of
200
trips
per
day.
After
installing
Trapeze
system,
weekday
ridership
increased
by
16%
and
passengers
per
hour
numbers
increased
from
2.96
to
3.0.

Kiwanis
Transit
(K-­?Transit)
is
a
demand
response
transportation
provider
in
Ontario,
Canada
that
provides
services
in
three
rural
townships
and
whose
vehicles
average
over
450
kilometers
during
a
single
shift.
K-­?Transit
required
detailed
client
history
tracking
and
customizable
reporting
functions
to
provide
accurate
data
to
federal,
provincial
and
municipal
stakeholders.
The
chosen
Trapeze
solution
automatically
scheduled
rides
and
maximized
the
number
of
passengers
riding
each
vehicle
through
routing
redesign
and
automated
dispatching
information.

CONTACT
INFORMATION

http://www.trapezegroup.com/

(403)
777
3760
ext.
427

68|

P a g e

TSO
MOBILE

TSO
Mobile

151

focuses
on
Mobile
Resource
Management
and
logistics
products
and
services.

With
headquarters
in
the
US,
Mexico,
Colombia,
Peru
and
Venezuela,
it
has
worked
on
projects
across
North,
Central
and
South
America,
as
well
as
the
Caribbean.
TSO
Mobile
provides
GPS
vehicle
tracking,
dispatching
tools,
and
other
specialized
products
for
public
transportation
systems.

TSO
provides
customized
solutions
depending
on
industry
and
size
of
fleet.
It
also
provides
a
strong
focus
on
customer
satisfaction
and
passenger
benefits.
Public
sector
specific
services
include
real-­?time
GPS
tracking,
TSO
public
tracker
for
real-­?time
information
for
passengers,
arrival
forecast,
Automated
Voice
and
Text
Information
Services
(AVIS
and
ATIS),
passenger
counters,
live
video
monitoring
of
buses,
LED
signs
and
annunciators,
and
public
information
displays
and
bus
stops.

TSO
Mobile
provided
an
itemized
quote
that
includes
prices
for
all
of
the
following
systems:
Automatic
Vehicle
Locator
(AVL),
Automated
Passenger
Counting
(APC),
Video
Security,
LED
signs/annunciators,
public
information
displays,
Automatic
Text
and
Voice
Information
Systems
(ATIS
and
AVIS).
They
charge
a
total
project
management
fee
of
2%
and
a
monthly
services
fee,
which
depends
on
the
final
installed
systems
(if
all
were
installed,
this
fee
would
be
$170
per
unit).
This
price
includes
all
on-­?site
installation,
training
and
unlimited
service.

Additional
resources
needed"
None.
If
anything,
the
County
might
choose
not
to
install
all
options
and
the
investment
would
be
lower.

IMPLEMENTATION
STATISTICS

From
TSO
Mobile
Website:

? Over
30
hours
per
week
can
be
saved
thanks
to
the
automation
of
operations.
? Over
30%
increase
in
ridership
can
be
achieved
through
proper
dispatching
and
an

efficient
public
transportation
service.

? Over
10%
reduction
in
costs
annually
can
be
achieved
depending
on
the
entity's
size,

operations
and
goals.

CONTACT
INFORMATION

http://www.tsomobile.com/

1-­?877-­?477-­?2922

SUMMARY
OF
COMPANIES
AND
SERVICES

Figure
7-­?2:
Analysis
of
Companies
and
Services

As
shown
in
Figure
7-­?2,
the
companies
reviewed
in
this
research
provide
a
wide
array
of
services,
and
finding
the
best
option
for
Hele-­?On
to
implement
will
depend
on
the
costs
of
each
and
the
availability
of
resources
in
the
County
of
Hawai`i.
If
resources
were
not
an
issue,
we
believe
TSO
Mobile
would
be
the
best
option.
Their
previous
experience
with
island
transportation
systems
was
evident
when
talking
to
their
sales
representative.
Options
like
Automated
Voice
and
Text
Information
Services
(AVIS
and
ATIS)
are
ideal
for
Hawai`i
because
a
large
part
of
the
population
does
not
own
a
?smartphone?
or
technology
to
use
an
?app?.
For
those
that
do
use
smartphones,
an
app
is
available
as
well.
Finally,
TSO
Mobile
provides

Company

Services

Au

to

m

at

ed

Pa

sse

ng

er

Co

un

tin

g

(A

PC)

Ro

ut

in

g
a

nd

Fl

ee

t

Ef

fic

ie

nc

y

Op

tim

iza

tio

n

Op

er

at

or

a

nd

V

eh

icl

e

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

Re

al

-­?ti

m

e

Pa

sse

ng

er

In

fo

rm

at

io

n

(R

TPI)

M

ob

ile

D

at

a
T

er

m

in

al

s

(M

DT

)

Ha

s
S

pe

cif

ic

Se

rv

ice

fo

r

Pu

bl

ic

Tr

an

sp

or

t?

Ha

s
w

or

ke

d

on

R

ur

al

o

r

Isl

an

d

Pr

oj

ec

ts

Actsoft

x

x

NextBus

x

x

Syncromatics

x

x

x

x

x

Teletrac

x

x

x

x

x

Trapeze

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TSO
Mobile

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

70|

P a g e

analytics
and
consulting
services
at
no
extra
charge,
which
is
essential
in
Hawai`i
County
where
the
staff
is
not
specialized
in
that
type
of
work.

CONCLUSIONS
AND
NEXT
STEPS

After
an
extensive
analysis
of
available
technology
options
for
improved
transportation
services,
we
have
determined
that
there
are
many
opportunities
for
the
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
to
invest
in
its
future
operations.
Further,
we
realized
that
the
value
of
a
technology
investment
is
exponential
when
several
technologies
are
used
together.
The
following
were
identified
as
the
most
beneficial
technologies
for
the
Hele-­?On
transit
system:

service
to
passengers
and
improve
their
overall
experience
to
increase
ridership.

While
Google
Transit
is
not
in
this
list,
as
it
lies
in
a
different
category
of
technology,
it
can
provide
incredible
benefits
at
a
low
cost
and
we
believe
it
is
the
first
important
step
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
should
take.

We
have
identified
three
different
stages
of
activities
and
investments
for
the
County
to
consider.
There
are
some
easy
and
low-­?cost
solutions
that
we
recommend
should
be
implemented
right
away,
and
some
pricier
but
more
impactful
solutions
for
which
additional
funds
must
be
procured.

IMMEDIATE
SHORT
TERM

!

Google
Transit:
Low
cost
option
with
easy
and
fast
implementation
that
can
help
passengers
identify
ideal
routes,
schedules,
connections,
etc.
It
will
be
necessary
to
develop
a
communication
strategy
to
let
users
know
of
its
availability
once
it
is
in
place.

!

Website
enhancements
for
easier
navigation.

!

Develop
clear
route
schedules
and
maps
that
can
be
seen
on
website
without
the
need
to
download
the
file.

Ridesharing
networks
offer
an
alternative,
inexpensive
method
of
transportation
that
would
be
well
suited
for
coordinating
commuting
across
the
County?s
dispersed
and
rural
populations.

According
to
the
American
Automobile
Association,
in
2008
it
cost
the
average
American
54.1
cents
per
mile
to
drive,
including
gasoline,
oil,
maintenance,
and
vehicle
depreciation;
a
40-­?mile
daily
round
trip
would
end
up
costing
$21.64
per
day,
$454
monthly,
or
$5,453
annually.

152

These
costs
are
increased
substantially
for
Hawai`i,
where
gasoline
prices
average
almost
$0.80/gallon
more
than
national
levels.

153

A
German
employer-­?based
rideshare
network
(TwoGo)
recently
implemented
trial
runs
of
its
service
in
Canada,
the
United
States
and
Singapore
between
July
2011
and
April
2013;
the
trial
analyzed
patterns
of
22,000
employees,
8,500
of
which
registered
with
the
network.
In
this
two-­?year
period,
there
were
36,000
matches,
400,000
miles
eliminated,
88
kilotons
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
avoided,
and
$5
million
realized
in
fuel
savings,
car
maintenance
and
resale
value.

154

A
U.S-­?based
service
specializing
in
corporate
and
university
partnerships,
Zimride,
had

facilitated
over
26,000
carpools,
acquired
350,000
registered
users,
and
saved
users
over
$50
million
in
vehicle
operating
expenses
within
the
two
years
since
its
inception.

155

Ridesharing
networks
allow
for
greater
cost
sharing
among
users,
reduced
car
maintenance
costs,
and
could
ease
overall
congestion
on
roads.
As
these
networks
penetrate
the
national
market,
rivalry
among
services
is
increasing
and
fees
are
becoming
more
cost-­?competitive
between
both
networks
as
well
as
taxi
services.
UberX
recently
reduced
fares
to
make
them
10%
lower
than
average
taxi
prices
(base
UberX
fare
of
$7
plus
$0.80-­?$3.80/mile),

156

while
Lyft,
an

app
created
by
Zimride,
has
maintained
an
average
cost
of
$15
per
hour
with
drivers
keeping
80%
of
the
total
donations.

157[158][159]

In
addition
to
lowered
costs,
rideshare
networks
allow
for
flexibility
of
unintended
scheduling
conflicts,
work
delays,
and
the
reassurances
of
GPS-­?tracked
reliability
and
sharing
of
information
unparalleled
by
bus
transit
?
each
trip
is
specifically
tailored
to
the
needs
of
passenger
and
driver.

Commuters
are
realizing
real
benefits,
reflected
by
the
rapid
expansion
of
regional
and
urban
networks,
increased
capital
investment
funding,
and
increased
average
growth
of
up
to
60%
monthly.

160

Travelers
are
also
attracted
to
the
network
by
the
sense
of
community,
informality,

and
public
good
derived
by
users.
Ridesharing
networks
are
under
consideration
nationwide
in

73|

P a g e

order
to
adequately
address
the
unmet
demand
for
lower-­?cost
travel
alternatives
for
middle-­?income
residents.
For
this
reason,
we
do
not
foresee
that
future
implementation
will
adversely
impact
mass
transit
ridership
on
Hawai`i
Island,
which
mainly
relies
on
lower-­?income
workers
for
a
majority
of
its
fare
revenue.

The
biggest
challenges
to
implementation
of
these
alternative
systems
remains
the
population
density
resulting
from
land
use
and
residential
planning,
which
has
led
to
heavy
reliance
on
existing
cars
for
daily
travel.
To
date,
ridesharing
networks
have
experienced
success
in
dense
urban
areas,
but
their
applicability
to
more
rural
situations
is
still
questionable.
We
are
unsure
whether
the
County
has
the
sheer
number
of
coast-­?to-­?coast
commuters
necessary
to
facilitate
a
rideshare
network
(although
shorter
rides
may
have
the
population
densities
required
to
support
the
system).
On
the
other
hand,
the
15%
of
islanders
who
carpool
present
a
substantially
larger
proportion
of
potential
ridesharers
and
vanpoolers
than
their
mainland
counterparts.

Currently,
there
is
a
small
Shared
Ride
Taxi
Program
managed
by
the
Mass
Transit
Agency,
which
charges
approximately
$2
per
coupon
for
four
miles,
or
two
coupons
($4)
for
eight
miles.
The
County
reimburses
the
$2
to
the
driver
for
each
coupon
they
submit.
Many
of
the
independent
taxi
drivers
enrolling
in
the
program
cater
to
the
elderly
and
disabled
in
Hilo.
This
system
also
has
had
some
success
in
distributing
coupons
through
the
County
Prosecutor?s
Office
to
bars
to
discourage
drunk
driving
around
the
holiday
season.
However,
participation
is
limited
to
an
eight-­?mile
radius
on
the
Hilo
side
of
the
island,
while
west-­?coast
taxi
companies
usually
decline
applications
for
permits
because
the
returns
are
not
as
lucrative.

161

Additionally,
passenger

registration
for
this
service
is
required
beforehand,
so
it
does
not
have
the
flexibility
of
a
real-­?time
demand-­?response
rideshare
network.
The
greatest
potential
impacts
of
ridesharing
and
realized
cost
savings
depend
on
the
ability
of
a
newly
created
service
to
bring
adequate
long-­?distance
ridership
from
residential
clusters
in
Puna,
Hilo,
Waimea,
and
Ocean
View-­?South
Kona
to
the
Kohala
Coast
and
Kona.
New
networks
are
not
meant
to
reduce
travel
time,
but
rather
provide
more
cost-­?effective,
flexible
and
community-­?oriented
commuting
alternatives.

BEST
PRACTICES
FOR
RIDESHARING
NETWORKS

We
studied
a
variety
of
existing
private
global
rideshare
networks
and
synthesized
a
set
of
best
practices
and
amenities
that
have
allowed
for
their
success.
We
determined
that
these
networks
have
become
increasingly
popular
in
attracting
ridership
both
domestically
and
abroad,
because
they
offer
the
user
a
specific
value
proposition:
avoiding
the
costs
and
congestion
of
individual
daily
commuting.
Lyft
now
provides
an
estimated
30,000
rides
per
week,

162

while
UberX
has

launched
in
40
cities
around
the
world
in
the
last
three
years.

163

Such
rapid
success
and

expansion
has
not
gone
unnoticed
?
venture
capital
firms
have
realized
that
such
networks
could
provide
substantial
returns
on
investment,
and
have
heavily
financed
these
networks
with
startup
capital.
Though
each
network
varies
in
its
marketing
and
branding
strategies,
the
general
design
of
these
systems
is
quite
similar:

74|

P a g e

TYPICAL
COMPONENTS
OF
A
RIDESHARING
NETWORK

1)

?Drivers?
and
?passengers?
each
create
log-­?in
accounts
via
smartphone,
tablet
or
computer.
In
order
to
ensure
driver
safety
and
avoid
insurance
risks,
security
background
checks
are
completed
on
all
active
account
members
before
they
are
entered
into
the
system.
This
process
verifies
that
drivers
have
violation-­?free
records
and
no
criminal
history.

2)

Passengers
log
into
their
accounts
when
they
would
like
to
be
picked
up
for
a
ride
from
a
driver
who
has
made
plans
to
drive,
and
whose
route
coincides
with
the
passenger.
This
is
determined
through
GPS
real-­?time
tracking
and
coordination
to
select
the
most
optimal
route
for
the
passenger
to
reach
their
destination.
The
passenger
is
presented
with
a
variety
of
choices
and
can
select
the
driver
who
best
meets
his
criteria
through
Driver
Ratings
and
Profile
Information
from
past
rides.
The
driver
is
then
notified
via
the
app
on
their
smart
device.

3)

Upon
arrival
at
the
final
destination,
passengers
either
pay
?suggested
donations?
to
the
driver
based
on
their
level
of
satisfaction
with
trip,
or
are
charged
a
mileage
fee
directly
to
their
account
(which
is
connected
to
a
working
credit
card).
Factors
incorporated
into
donation
include
distance,
time
of
day,
duration
and
location,
with
the
company
retaining
a
percentage
of
the
donation.

4)

Both
driver
and
passenger
have
the
option
to
leave
a
review
or
rating
for
each
other,
to
boost
their
membership
points
within
the
rideshare
network
and
expand
opportunities
for
later
rides.

OPTIMIZING
FEATURES

!

Flexibility
of
scheduling:
The
best
systems
allow
drivers
and
passengers
to
make
plans
anywhere
from
a
week
in
advance
to
ten
minutes
prior
to
departure.
We
also
recommend
the
integration
of
calendar
functionality
to
notify
the
user
for
friendly
reminders
for
those
that
make
their
plans
in
advance.

!

Matching
algorithm:
We
recommend
a
system
that
allows
the
driver
or
rider
to
filter
ride
requests
to
a
specific
drop-­?off
location
or
area
(i.e.
setting
filter
to
only
accept
rides
that
end
near
your
work).
This
technology
was
first
utilized
successfully
by
Sidecar
in
San
Francisco.

164

!

Integrated
GPS:
GPS
real-­?time
synchronization
and
information
tracking
between
Driver
and
Passenger
allows
the
rider
to
receive
up-­?to-­?the-­?minute
details
regarding
departure,
arrival
and
current
status
of
the
trip.
Shared
data
alleviates
uncertainty
for
both
parties.

!

Cancellation
and
Damage
Fees:
Regardless
of
whether
donations
are
voluntary
or
mileage
fees
are
mandatory,
cancellation
and
damage
fees
(penalty
payments
from
skipped
rideshare
arrangements
or
car
damages)
mitigate
the
risk
of
accident
or
inconvenience
on
the
part
of
the
driver
or
passenger.

!

Marketing
promotions:
In
order
to
build
name
recognition
and
ease
skepticism
within
communities,
many
rideshare
networks
have
organized
promotional
and
philanthropic
events
and
bargains
upon
initial
expansion
to
a
new
coverage
zone.
UberX
expansion

75|

P a g e

promotions
include
a
first
month
of
rides
free
of
charge
offered
to
new
users,
as
well
as
promotional
codes
and
sales
partnerships
with
retail
vendors
like
Stubhub
and
LivingSocial.

Local
partnerships:
There
are
a
number
of
local
taxi
companies
in
Hilo
and
Kona,
most
of
which
do
not
operate
for
distances
greater
than
nine
miles
(intra-­?town
only).
Rideshare
networks
can
partner
with
these
independent
taxi
companies
and
link
licensed
and
insured
drivers
to
customers
?
this
can
be
mutually
beneficial
in
allowing
the
networks
to
gain
initial
traction
by
exposure
to
taxi
customers,
while
attracting
new
business
to
taxi
services.
This
would
be
regulated
under
the
authority
of
the
Hawai`i
Public
Utilities
Commission,
and
is
already
practiced
with
UberX
in
Honolulu.

166

[

167

].

!

Long-­?term
integration
of
ridesharing
networks
with
other
nearby
transportation
alternatives:
Existing
software
applications
like
Ridescout
incorporate
GPS
real-­?time
tracking
and
scheduling
with
bus,
rail,
taxi,
Sidecar
(rideshare)
and
bike
sharing
networks
in
close
proximity.
This
would
allow
for
users
to
assess
the
cheapest
and
most
efficient
nearby
transportation
options
while
simultaneously
reducing
uncertainty
for
these
services
(last-­?five-­?miles
compatibility).

168

This
implementation
would
be
contingent
upon

GPS
coordination
and
installation
on
an
island-­?wide
scale.

CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
ESTABLISHING
A
RIDESHARE
NETWORK
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

The
following
section
clarifies
the
regulations
and
policies
essential
for
creating
a
viable
environment
for
the
network
to
thrive.
In
addition,
the
section
outlines
funding
concerns
and
startup
costs,
steps
for
implementation,
and
possible
barriers
to
overcome.

POLICIES
IN
EXISTENCE

In
order
to
apply
for
grants,
an
individual,
non-­?governmental
organization
or
public
entity
must
formalize
a
proposal
to
the
Hawai`i
Department
of
Transportation,
who
will
subsequently
evaluate
the
proposal
before
granting
the
request,
or
submitting
to
the
federal
Department
of
Transportation
for
prioritization.

EMPLOYER-­?RELATED
SUBSIDIES

Employer-­?related
subsidies
can
increase
productivity
by
promoting
commuter
habits
that
reduce
employee
absenteeism
and
late
arrivals,
while
saving
on
overhead
costs
associated
with
maintaining
parking
through
the
encouragement
of
carpools.
Employees
and
businesses
must
be
enrolled
in
the
federal
Transportation
Incentive
Program
(TIP)
in
order
to
benefit
from
commuting
incentives.

COMMUTER
TAX
BENEFITS
PROGRAM

This
program,
which
is
introduced
in
the
Ground
Transportation
on
Hawai`i
Island
and
Other
Rural
Localities
section,
reduces
payroll
taxes
by
allowing
employees
to
use
pre-­?tax
dollars
for

76|

P a g e

transport
as
subsidies
for
carpooling.
It
applies
to
work-­?related
trips
taken
on
a
bus,
rail,
subway,
ferry,
subscription
bus,
shuttle,
vanpool,
or
rideshare
network.
Employers
can
structure
the
benefits
in
three
ways:

169

!

Provision
of
transit
passes,
vanpool
vouchers
or
cash
reimbursement
directly
to
employees.
Businesses
can
deduct
up
to
$130
per
month
per
employee
for
any
qualified
commuting
subsidy
as
a
normal
business
expense,
nontaxable
to
the
employee.

!

Employers
can
set
aside
their
employees?
pre-­?tax
income
amount
used
for
qualified
commuting
expenses,
up
to
a
maximum
of
$130
per
month
before
payroll
taxes;
taxes
are
paid
on
this
reduced
amount
of
the
employees?
salary.

!

Employers
can
pay
both
part
of
an
employee?s
commuting
costs,
deducting
that
amount,
then
deduct
the
remaining
cost
up
to
$130
per
month
per
employee
from
their
salary
before
calculating
taxes.

This
regionally
based
program
exists
for
commuters
who
vanpool,
carpool,
bike,
walk
or
take
public
transit
?
it
exists
as
an
emergency
or
contingency
plan
for
getting
home.
Operated
by
the
local
transit
authorities
(Mass
Transit
Agency),
it
is
relatively
inexpensive
to
implement.
For
many
businesses,
participation
in
a
GRHP
is
free
for
employers.
The
program
requires
employees
to
commute
alternatively
to
work
a
minimum
number
of
times
each
week,
and
in
return
allows
a
ride
home
either
by
taxi
or
rental
car
up
to
an
annual
ride
limit
(usually
between
two
to
eight
rides).
Payment
for
the
ride
is
either
reimbursed
by
the
sponsoring
agency
or
employer-­?paid
to
the
transit
provider
in
the
form
of
a
small
annual
base
rate
determined
by
size
of
the
company
work
force.
The
sponsoring
agency
sets
program
eligibility
criteria,
allowable
destinations
and
maximum
distance,
service
hours,
payment
method,
membership
fees
and
program
procedures.

170

Companies
must
register
for
the
program
on
an
individual
basis,
usually

coordinated
through
the
region?s
respective
regional
transit
authority.
An
FTA
study
of
regional
GRHPs
in
2006
revealed
a
median
cost
per
claim
of
$36.95
and
a
median
cost
per
registrant
of
$0.35;
the
average
amount
of
time
spent
weekly
to
manage
the
program
(per
100
participants)
was
only
15
minutes
in
rural
areas.

171

The
benefits
expand
business
service
hours
without
increasing
costs
by
allowing
flexible
or
staggered
work
hours
only
available
through
increased
access
to
transportation
alternatives
(such
as
ridesharing).
Furthermore,
businesses
that
actively
participate
in
transportation
planning
initiatives
have
the
opportunity
to
network
with
other
businesses
and
entities
with
a
stake,
making
them
well
positioned
to
voice
their
priorities.
Other
states
(such
as
Maryland
and
Minnesota)
have
implemented
their
own
state
tax
credit
initiatives
allowing
businesses
to
claim
a
tax
credit
for
a
percentage
of
what
employers
have
contributed
towards
commuting
costs.

This
program
is
important
to
providing
reliability
and
flexibility
in
extending
contingency
coverage
for
long-­?distance
commuters.
The
successful
implementation
and
desirability
of
the
network
relies
on
the
strength
of
its
service
convenience
and
certainty,
so
this
type
of
benefit
could
attract
new
ridership
and
substantial
business
registration.
However,
it
is
important
not
to
overstate
this
program
as
a
strong
ridesharing
incentive
?
most
regional
programs
only
offer
a
severely
restricted
annual
ride
limit.
Additionally,
Hawai`i
County?s
geographic
location
and
lack
of
state
transportation
demand
management
(TDM)
initiatives
will
be
a
difficult
obstacle
to
overcome
in
terms
of
adequate
program
funding.
Funding
for
the
program
varies
by
region,
but
can
either
be
supplemented
with
state
and
federal
monies,
or
completely
supported
by
the
private
sector
or
through
grants
from
local
organizations.
Funding
may
prove
difficult
for
Hawai`i
County
?
most
federal
grants
are
only
available
for
congestion
mitigation
initiatives
in
more
dense
areas,
or
programs
addressing
transit
for
the
disabled.

173

PARKING
INCENTIVES

Preferential
parking
incentives
may
also
be
used
to
promote
carpooling
and
ridesharing
networks
for
work.
This
may
include
reduced
fees
for
parking,
or
designated
rideshare
parking
spaces
located
close
to
places
of
work.

STATE
CAR-­?SHARING
VEHICLE
SURCHARGE
TAX:
HB1894
&
SB2731

(Pending
Final
Review
as
of
1/31/14)

174

These
proposed
bills,
passed
on
first
reading
in
both
the
Hawai`i
House
and
Senate,
require
a
vehicle
surcharge
tax
(current
amount
undecided)
to
be
levied
upon
all
vehicles
used
by
members
of
car-­?sharing
organizations
each
month.
Additionally,
a
$20
first-­?time
registration
fee
also
must
be
issued
to
the
person
who
registers
the
vehicle.
Currently,
the
definition
?car-­?sharing
organization?
is
too
narrow,
and
specifying
the
term
with
regard
to
peer-­?to-­?peer
ridesharing
programs
would
have
substantial
implications
moving
forward
into
the
future.

instrumental
in
establishing
a
precedent
for
encouraging
competition
and
development
within
the
state,
but
the
imposed
tax
could
also
be
another
way
to
discourage
new
users
from
registering
vehicles
with
car-­?sharing
organizations
by
treating
them
like
a
public
utility.

In
addition,
the
2007
state
legislature
passed
HB869,
the
Energy
Efficient
Transportation
Strategy
Act,
signed
into
law
as
Act
254
?
it
requires
strategic
professional
working
groups
to
develop
strategies
that
optimize
energy
usage
in
the
transportation
sector.
It
highlights
carpool/vanpool
programs,
government
subsidies
and
marketing
campaigns
as
essential
strategies
in
offering
more
choices
in
mode
of
travel.

176

While
there
is
still
a
disconnect
between

78|

P a g e

level
of
state
governmental
commitment/funding
and
actual
prioritization,
the
past
five
years
have
seen
forward
steps
in
recognizing
ridesharing
as
a
viable
entity
moving
into
the
future,
which
may
coincide
well
with
the
timing
for
rollout
of
Requests
for
Proposals
(RFPs)
or
setting
up
vendor
contracts.

Together,
these
pieces
of
legislation
could
reduce
economic
and
social
uncertainty
and
set
a
standard
that
recognizes
the
ridesharing
network
as
a
functioning
transportation
entity,
while
fostering
support
from
legislators
by
generating
additional
revenue
for
the
state.
However,
in
order
to
encourage
expansion,
there
must
be
further
legislative
clarification
whether
or
not
these
companies
will
be
grouped
into
the
same
categories
as
existing
public
utilities,
and
elaborate
on
which
services
and
practices
will
be
allowed.
In
California,
a
September
2013
legislative
ruling
legally
authorized
ridesharing
entities
within
the
purview
of
the
state
public
utility
commission;
the
ruling
was
hailed
as
a
success
by
existing
Transportation
Network
Companies
(TNCs),
which
could
operate
more
freely
without
having
to
comply
with
the
same
restrictions
as
traditional
transit.

177

If
ridesharing
companies
are
legally
established
with

properly
defined
regulatory
guidelines,
it
could
be
a
major
boon
in
attracting
rideshare
expansion
to
the
county,
and
perhaps
even
expand
the
capacity
for
allocating
tax
incentives
to
employers
and
commuters
as
more
revenue
is
generated
from
these
enterprises.

NETWORK
MANAGEMENT

TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATIONS

Transportation
Management
Associations
(TMAs)
are
nonprofit,
member-­?controlled
organizations
that
coordinate
transportation,
vanpool,
and
rideshare
services
between
regional
businesses
?
these
coordinated
regional
authorities
are
established
by
a
sponsoring
agency,
usually
a
state,
regional
or
county
transportation
board,
metropolitan
planning
organization
(MPO),
or
regional
Council
of
Governments
(COG).
Private
enterprises
that
wish
to
join
a
TMA
are
accepted
on
an
individual
basis
and
are
allowed
to
share
the
federally
recognized
benefits
of
commuter-­?oriented
ridesharing
and
carpooling.
This
organization
can
be
structured
as
follows:

!

A
Hawai`i
County
Transportation
Management
Association
could
be
established
by
the
County
of
Hawai`i
and
Mass
Transit
Agency
with
input
from
the
Hawai`i
County
Economic
Opportunity
Council,
the
Energy
Coordinator,
the
Planning
&
Economic
Development
Department,
and
the
Research
&
Development
division.

!

Transportation
planning
within
a
TMA
should
be
an
inclusive
process,
considering
the
perspective
of
various
stakeholders
including,
but
not
limited
to:
users,
citizens/taxpayers,
impacted
residents,
businesses,
employees/workers,
public
officials,
affected
organizations/interest
groups.

Regional
or
local
governments,
chambers
of
commerce,
or
developers
of
a
major
facility
usually
provide
seed
funding.
TMAs
are
generally
funded
through
member
fees
paid
by
businesses
and
government
transportation
grants.

!

A
Board
of
Directors
may
be
necessary
to
oversee
administrative
responsibilities
of
the
TMA
?
this
Board
should
consist
of
members
from
the
business
community,
transportation
and
economic
development
government
officials
at
the
County
level,
as
well
as
Chamber
of
Commerce
representatives
from
both
Kailua-­?
Kona
and
Hilo.

It
is
important
to
note
that
there
is
an
inherent
tradeoff
involved.
Establishment
of
a
federally
recognized
Transportation
Management
Association
(TMA)
offers
benefits
for
increasing
the
infrastructure
around
ridesharing,
specifically
for
employees
and
commuters,
as
this
type
of
arrangement
makes
Commuter
Tax
Benefits
and
the
Guaranteed
Ride
Home
Program
available
and
much
easier
to
facilitate.
TMAs
provide
the
organizational
structure
necessary
to
gauge
potential
ridership
from
alternative
commuting
programs,
garner
public
interest
around
new
network
opportunities,
and
work
cooperatively
to
identify
new
company
registrants
and
apply
for
external
funding.
However,
it
may
be
much
more
difficult
to
establish
a
TMA
in
a
rural
county
with
a
dispersed
population
distribution
and
limited
accessibility
to
public
services
and
utilities.
Because
TMAs
rely
on
a
structured
public-­?private
partnership
with
registered
users
stored
and
detailed
in
an
online
database,
the
county?s
high
percentage
of
socially
and
technologically
isolated
communities
(like
Puna)
may
impede
transition
to
such
a
system.

There
are
also
tradeoffs
as
to
which
public
entity
should
partially
administer
the
ridesharing
network.
The
Mass
Transit
Agency
is
already
in
existence,
but
would
require
additional
staff
members
because
the
current
staff
must
focus
on
operating
the
Hele-­?On
bus
systems.
Any
additional
responsibilities
would
require
at
least
two
new
coordinating
positions
in
order
to
spearhead
funding
and
oversight.
While
a
Transportation
Management
Association
or
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
might
be
a
better
long-­?term
option
in
terms
of
its
broad
capacity
for
coordination
and
outreach/participation
among
key
officials
and
business
leaders,
there
are
no
current
authorities
in
existence
in
Hawai`i
County
?
any
effort
to
establish
such
an
entity
would
require
time
and
more
capital
than
adding
duties
to
the
existing
agency.

There
are
venture
capital
firms
that
have
invested
in
early
financing
rounds
for
existing
TNCs.
Many
of
the
companies
invest
in
seed,
series
a/b
and
growth
stages
of
development;
many
of
the
companies
also
consult
with
a
design,
marketing,
recruiting
and
engineering
perspective
with
portfolio
companies
in
order
to
maximize
financial
return.
Refer
to
Appendix
F
for
more
information
on
investors
and
existing
rideshare
companies.

A
complete
list
of
national
TMAs
and
their
corresponding
websites
are
listed
in
Appendix
E.

180

80|

P a g e

PUBLIC-­?PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
(PPP
OR
P3)

Public-­?private
partnerships
(PPP
or
P3)
represent
a
bright
future
for
the
funding
of
transportation
projectsand
may
prove
advantageous
to
long-­?term
ridesharing
solutions
for
Hawai`i
Island.
These
public-­?private
partnerships
make
it
possible
for
transit
agencies
or
transportation
projects
to
find
integrative
and
comprehensive
solutions
without
driving
up
fares.
The
agencies?
main
objective
is
not
so
much
profits,
but
rather
to
address
mandates
from
government
to
reduce
congestion,
air
quality
and
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
In
a
P3
agreement,
projects
are
privately
financed
with
the
transit
agency
maintaining
full
or
partial
control
of
the
project.
The
private
partner
will
assume
all
or
part
of
the
financial
risk
in
exchange
for
a
share
of
potential
profits.

181

Public-­?private
partnership
agreements
must
clearly
define
Key
Performance
Indicators
(KPIs),
which
serve
as
the
basis
for
payment
and
ensuring
that
the
partner
is
addressing
the
needs
of
the
public
agency.
Partners
should
also
have
a
history
of
demonstrable
experience
in
providing
technical
support
and
efficient
delivery
or
functionality
in
production.

Accelerated
Project
Delivery
?
these
agreements
usually
employ
a
design-­?build
contract
approach,
as
opposed
to
design-­?bid-­?build
procurement
process
that
often
expands
the
timeline
of
the
project.

Transit
agency
must
cede
certain
elements
of
control
in
order
to
acquire
adequate
funding
and
other
benefits;
depends
on
which
partner
is
interested
in
retaining
primary
authority.

!

Risk
Transfer
?
there
are
certain
risks
that
private
partners
will
not
assume,
including
changes
in
law,
and
interference
or
approval
by
third-­?party
governmental
entities.

!

Most
P3
projects
to
date
have
been
implemented
for
transit
solutions
and
improvements,
rather
than
establishment
of
new
rideshare
networks.

HAWAI`I
PUBLIC
UTILITIES
COMMISSION

The
Hawai`i
Public
Utilities
Commission
(HPUC)
should
be
involved
the
establishment
of
a
ridesharing
network
as
regulatory
authority.
In
order
to
attract
private
growth,
investment
and
economic
certainty
of
an
existing
network,
the
state
should
legally
recognize
ridesharing
as
a
separate
entity
?
this
provides
legitimacy
to
the
shared
economy,
and
thus
allows
the
HPUC
to

81|

P a g e

standardize
a
set
of
rules
for
transportation
network
companies
(TNCs).
As
the
national
leader
in
peer-­?to-­?peer
ridesharing
networks,
California
has
experienced
rapid
cultivation,
expansion
and
adoption
of
various
networks
throughout
the
state,
and
as
a
result
has
recently
become
the
first
state
to
adopt
standards
for
ridesharing
networks.
In
order
to
acquire
a
license
from
the
California
Public
Utility
Commission,
TNC
services
were
mandated
to
provide
a
minimum
of
$1
million
in
insurance
coverage,
vehicle
inspections,
driver
training
programs,
and
a
zero-­?tolerance
drug
and
alcohol
policy.

184

RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
AN
EXISTING
RIDESHARE
NETWORK
(TNC)

Existing
ridesharing
companies,
like
UberX
and
Lyft,
have
the
flexibility
and
could
work
within
the
framework
of
an
island
environment,
as
they
require
only
GPS
technology,
cars,
community,
and
little
additional
capital.
Administrative
oversight
and
long-­?term
recognition
of
these
entities
by
the
state
public
utility
commission,
an
established
Transportation
Management
Association,
the
state
transportation
office
(Rural
Transit
Assistance
Program),
or
Mass
Transit
Agency
would
be
necessary
to
ensure
growth
and
success
into
the
future,
if
a
public-­?private
partnership
is
not
sought
out.
However,
UberX
introduced
their
service
to
Oahu
with
a
?soft
launch?
in
2013.
The
company
is
testing
out
promotional
specials
and
experimenting
with
prices
to
meet
an
optimal
demand
for
the
island.

Because
there
are
no
existing
TNCs
on
the
island,
we
recommend
that
the
County
issue
a
Request
for
Proposal
(RFP)
to
mainland
companies
if
they
wish
to
connect
with
s
an
existing
service.
We
cannot
say
with
certainty
whether
one
peer-­?to-­?peer
mobile
service
works
more
efficiently
for
this
unique
situation
than
another,
so
we
should
allow
them
to
compete
in
a
bidding
process
for
procurement.
The
County
can
prioritize
key
attributes
that
they
desire
in
a
rideshare
network
(minimizing
costs
to
user
and
public,
service
convenience/flexibility/
frequency,
ease
of
administration,
technological
requirements,
capital
required,
socially
equitable,
etc.)
and
let
the
TNCs
compete.
Appendix
F
provides
a
table
with
information
on
existing
rideshare
mobility
providers
for
reference
during
the
RFP
process.

OPPORTUNITY:
ESTABLISHING
A
VANPOOL
NETWORK

Vanpool
networks
are
an
attractive
transit
alternative
to
establishing
a
rideshare
network
on
Hawai`i
Island.
A
vanpool
network
on
Hawai`i
Island
would
ostensibly
serve
long-­?distance
commuters
along
a
designated
route
with
hubs
at
both
ends.
The
Vanpool
Hawai`i
system
originally
implemented
around
Honolulu
utilized
a
third-­?party
provider
to
provide
cost-­?efficient
rides
to
both
commuters
and
daily
travelers.
In
order
for
this
type
of
network
to
attract
an
adequate
base
of
commuters,
costs
must
be
subsidized
by
federal
policies
while
the
vans
must
be
flexible
enough
to
reach
individual
homes
as
well
as
central
nodes.
However,
this
type
of
funding
is
not
readily
available;
residents
and
businesses
could
look
to
private
vendor
VRide
if
they
wish
to
procure
vanpool
services,
which
already
serve
the
island.

82|

P a g e

VANPOOL
NETWORK
STRUCTURES

Federal
policies
have
encouraged
businesses
to
develop
alternative
methods
of
work
commuting
(Guaranteed
Ride
Home,
Commuter
Tax
Benefits).
As
a
result
vanpool
networks
have
been
expanded
in
many
regions
in
order
to
efficiently
sustain
a
mobile
working
community.
Company
vanpool
protocols
have
been
shown
to
save
on
parking
costs
by
decreasing
the
number
of
individual
employee
drivers,
expand
company
recruitment
options
through
better
networking,
reduce
employee
absenteeism,
promote
companies
as
employee-­?friendly,
as
well
as
reduce
travel
costs
for
workers.

185

There
are
three
possible
frameworks
for

coordination
of
employee
vanpool
systems:

186

!

Employer-­?sponsored
or
operated
programs
where
vans
are
leased
and
insurance
is
obtained
through
the
company?s
regular
fleet
policy.

!

Third-­?party
providers
(such
as
VPSI
Inc.,
LOTMA,
or
2Plus)
where
the
employer
contracts
with
a
private
company
or
organization
to
provide
the
vanpool
service
?
this
includes
purchasing
or
leasing
the
actual
vans,
vehicle
liability
and
collision
coverage,
forming
vanpool
groups,
program
administration,
marketing,
and
van
maintenance.

!

Individually
owned
and
operated
vanpools
where
the
employee
owns
and
maintains
the
van,
coordinating
daily
operation
of
the
vanpool.
Rider
fares
cover
the
purchase
and
maintenance
costs
of
the
van.

Riders
usually
meet
at
a
designated
location
(shopping
center
parking
lot,
church,
park-­?and-­?ride
location,
etc.)
?
from
there,
vans
can
either
have
one
or
several
pick-­?up
and
drop-­?off
points.
There
are
determined
starting
and
ending
nodes
for
both
morning
and
evening
commutes
for
all
weekdays.

187

This
could
also
be
expanded
to
include
commutes
on
weekend
days.

BEST
PRACTICES
FOR
VANPOOLING
NETWORKS

The
Transportation
to
Work
toolkit

188

emphasizes
Keys
to
Success
for
vanpool
programs

nationwide
through
comprehensive
case
studies.
They
have
summarized
that
the
strongest
elements
of
successful
systems
include
development
of
innovative
partnerships,
involvement
of
area
employers,
understanding
the
unique
needs
of
communities,
obtaining
political
support
from
local
officials,
emphasis
on
ease
of
use
for
businesses
and
commuters,
as
well
as
ensuring
flexibility
in
guaranteed
rides.

Employees
and
business
owners
should
both
be
consulted
when
developing
time/route
schedules,
even
if
the
service
is
to
be
provided
through
a
third
party
contract.
This
ensures
that
adequate
attention
is
paid
to
meeting
geographical
transportation
demand.

!

Optional
fuel
card
program
and
either
monthly
fares
or
flexible
pay-­?as-­?you-­?go
agreements
that
cover
costs
of
the
van,
insurance,
roadside
assistance,
and
emergency
rides.
In
a
third
party
system,
private
companies
will
recruit
the
drivers.

!

Online
account
and
database
which
tracks
daily
van
routes
along
a
map

FUNDING
A
VANPOOL
NETWORK

In
the
past,
funding
for
Transportation
Management
Association
(TMA)
vanpool
networks
has
been
allocated
via
voter-­?approved
sales
taxes
or
federal
grants
from
the
Federal
Transit
Administration.
While
a
majority
of
the
funding
goes
towards
administrative
duties
and
oversight
through
state
agencies,
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations
(MPOs)
or
TMAs,
most
federal
funding
allows
for
up
to
50%
of
the
total
allocations
to
be
kept
for
the
vanpool
operations
themselves.
In
addition,
some
states
have
their
own
Vanpool
Investment
Funds;
Washington
uses
such
a
fund
in
order
to
enable
regional
TMAs
to
put
vans
into
operation,
with
costs
(fuel,
maintenance,
insurance)
being
recovered
through
fares
and
federal
subsidization.

189

There
are
three
primary
channels
of
federal
funding
available
for
the
County
of
Hawai`i
to
establish
its
own
network,
all
enacted
through
the
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation?s
Safe
Accountable
Flexible
Efficient
Transportation
Equity
Act
(SAFETEA-­?LU):

Keeping
these
funding
channels
available
is
essential
if
the
County
wishes
to
administer
its
own
vanpool
program.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
Hawai`i
County
Economic
Opportunity
Council
has
had
some
recent
difficulty
with
securing
funding
through
the
Job
Access
and
Reverse
Commute
Program
(discussed
below)
for
an
additional
vanpool
vehicle
to
take
commuters
from
Ocean
View
to
the
major
work
hub
along
the
Kohala
Coast.

190

Actual
monthly

savings
are
still
realized
(between
$120-­?$160
per
month
to
the
user),
but
there
are
currently
only
1,600
estimated
vanpoolers
statewide.

191

The
Hawai`i
Department
of
Transportation

currently
only
sets
aside
a
small
portion
of
funding
through
its
Rural
Transit
Assistance
Program
for
vanpool
driver
training
scholarships,
while
responsibility
has
been
ceded
to
a
third
party
(VRide)
for
network
operations.
This,
coupled
with
the
state?s
discontinuation
of
the
Vanpool
Hawai`i
program
altogether,
highlights
the
difficulties
of
subsidizing
and
prioritizing
county
transit
efforts
despite
public
interest
in
alternative
commuter
networks.

FORMULA
GRANTS
FOR
OTHER
THAN
URBANIZED
AREAS
(SECTION
5311
GRANTS)

192

Federal
discretionary
funding
is
also
available
to
states
for
supporting
public
transportation
in
rural
areas
with
populations
of
less
than
50,000.
These
projects
must
demonstrate
enhancement
of
accessibility
to
health
care,
shopping,
education,
and
employment,
and
can
improve
existing
systems,
while
encouraging
the
most
efficient
use
of
coordinated
services
and
networks.
The
funding
also
seeks
out
support
for
private
transportation
providers
in
low-­?population
areas.
The
federal
share
of
capital
expenses
may
not
exceed
80%,
while
the
share
of

84|

P a g e

operating
costs
should
not
exceed
50%.
Funding
is
apportioned
by
a
formula
using
census
information
and
analyzing
land
area,
administered
through
the
Federal
Transit
Authority.
In
2012,
there
was
$40.1
million
appropriated
to
Hawai`i
through
these
grants.

JOB
ACCESS
AND
REVERSE
COMMUTE
PROGRAM
(JARC
SECTION
5316
FUNDS)

193

This
Federal
Transit
Authority-­?authorized
program
was
established
to
address
the
transportation
challenges
faced
by
low-­?income
workers
seeking
to
obtain
and
maintain
employment
to
moderate
success.
Eligible
recipients
are
state
and
public
entities,
private
nonprofits,
and
private
operators,
who
are
working
to
enhance
mobility
of
these
disadvantaged
communities
through
transporting
people
to
and
from
work.
In
2007,
there
was
$59.6
million
allocated
nationally,
with
20%
given
to
small
urbanized
areas
and
20%
apportioned
for
rural
areas.
Potential
program
candidates
currently
must
apply
individually
to
receive
funding.

RECOMMENDATIONS

CREATING
A
RIDESHARE
NETWORK
ON
HAWAI`I
ISLAND

BUSINESS
MODEL

We
have
developed
the
business
model
represented
in
Figure
8-­?1.
The
following
section
will
discuss
the
key
elements
we
have
highlighted
below.

The
network
should
be
comprised
of
the
following
groups
of
suppliers
and
strategic
partners:

1) A
transit
authority
or
Transportation
Management
Association
is
necessary
for

administrative
coordination,
daily
functionality
and
management
of
an
online
account
database
of
users.
Within
a
public-­?private
partnership
(P3)
framework,
the
public
agency
must
cede
a
majority
of
its
control
to
the
private
investor.
Another
possibility
is
for
the
private
entity
to
engage
in
a
partnership
with
the
local
university
(University
of
Hawai`i
at
Hilo)
to
facilitate
transportation
for
students,
faculty
and
workers.

2) Value-­?driven
entrepreneurs,
like
the
Rideshare
Company,
Cubic,
TwoGo
and
Trapeze
will
be

necessary
to
finance
initial
startup
costs
of
GPS,
account
and
software
development,
technical
support
and
marketing
?
as
well
as
provide
support
and
guidance
to
the
necessary
administrative
agency.

3) Independent
taxi
companies
could
be
subcontracted
to
build
more
of
an
initial
client
base

while
maintaining
friendly
relations
and
a
mutually
beneficial
with
this
industry.
This
is
more
of
a
long-­?term
goal,
as
taxi
systems
would
have
to
be
calibrated
with
GPS
technology
and
ridesharing
payment
options
in
order
for
drivers
to
pick
up
multiple
riders
and
split
fares.
Costs
would
also
have
to
come
down
considerably.

KEY
ACTIVITIES

A
key
advantage
of
the
P3
structure
over
a
traditional
TNC
company
will
be
forgoing
the
tedious
process
of
securing
and
sourcing
funds,
from
venture
capital
groups
as
well
as
the
federal
funding
sources
mentioned
above
?
this
is
essential
in
the
earliest
stages
of
development,
where
the
most
technical
support
and
administrative
coordination
is
needed.
There
may
need
to
be
some
external
sourcing
of
funding
in
order
to
partially
cover
the
cost
of
compensation
to
the
vendor,
but
usually
the
third
party
has
the
expertise
to
guide
the
agency
in
finding
available
financial
assistance.
In
addition,
the
network
must
maintain
platform
and
account
development
(keeping
up
a
functioning
and
accessible
database
which
screens
users
and
provides
feedback),
GPS
calibration
and
coordination
between
drivers
and
riders,
application
software
development,
and
marketing/outreach
to
garner
interest.

Marketing
and
outreach
should
account
for
a
substantial
portion
of
developing
a
consistent
customer
base.
Press
releases
in
local
newspapers,
emails
to
community
groups,
promotional
deals
broadcasted
via
radio,
and
in-­?person
tabling
in
populous
areas
to
disseminate
information
and
greet
potential
riders.

KEY
RESOURCES

The
success
of
the
network
will
rely
on
technology
infrastructure
(both
through
mobile
and
computer-­?based
users
and
the
interactive
platform,
which
links
them
to
rideshare
information),
an
easy-­?to-­?use
payment
option
linked
to
credit
card
information,
the
enthusiasm
and
network
support
of
drivers
and
riders
alike,
and
an
accessible
and
attractive
interface.

86|

P a g e

VALUE
PROPOSITIONS

Ultimately,
the
rideshare
networks
should
be
marketed
in
a
way
that
emphasizes
connectivity
and
networking
potential
with
the
surrounding
community
(i.e.
island
pride
and
heritage
in
community).
Additionally,
ridesharing
saves
the
cost
of
individual
travel,
while
allowing
commuters
to
engage
and
carpool
in
a
friendly
and
safe
environment
with
a
personalized
service.
It
should
also
be
emphasized
that
drivers
can
actually
make
a
profit
based
on
distance
and
the
number
of
carpoolers
they
select.

CUSTOMER
RELATIONSHIPS

Same-­?side
network
effects
exist
where
both
drivers
and
riders
benefit
from
a
shared
system.
The
business
will
benefit
from
increased
usage
and
operation
streamlining
as
the
network
expands
and
gets
increasing
exposure.
There
must
also
be
a
positive
working
relationship
between
private
partner
and
public
agency,
where
the
responsibilities
and
duties
of
both
parties
are
clearly
defined
prior
to
implementation.

CHANNELS

It
is
important
to
consider
the
way
in
which
the
network
communicates
and
targets
customer
segments.
It
should
rely
on
a
functional
mobile
application,
calendar
automation
(i.e.
Google
calendar
notification),
as
well
as
a
website
for
those
without
access
to
smart
phones
or
tablets.
A
rideshare
board
might
also
be
useful
for
residents
with
limited
internet
access
in
order
for
residents
to
either
register
for
the
service,
or
find
out
when
rides
are
departing/entering
their
locale.

CUSTOMER
SEGMENTS

Primarily
this
service
will
be
targeted
at
island
commuters
and
employers.
Other
prospective
targets
include
tourists,
university
and
high
school
students,
university
faculty
and
staff.

COST
STRUCTURE

If
the
County
opts
to
enter
into
agreement
with
a
private
vendor
(via
a
public-­?private
partnership),
that
vendor
will
cover
operational
expenses
and
technical
support
in
exchange
for
compensation
for
fare
revenue
and
software
costs.
For
reference,
a
Regional
Rideshare
interface
and
online
ridematching
platform
in
the
Los
Angeles
metropolitan
area
through
the
Trapeze
Group?s
RidePro
program
cost
a
total
of
$208,929;
the
Riverside
County
Transportation
Commission
paid
$81,553,
while
the
national
Mobile
Source
Air
Pollution
Reduction
Review
Committee
(MSRC)
covered
$127,376,
through
the
state
of
California?s
discretionary
funds.

194

From
there,
most
of
the
cost
is
incurred
upon
the
drivers,
who
would
normally
pay
for
gasoline
and
car
maintenance
from
commuting
anyway.
The
attractiveness
of
the
network
is
the
shared
(reduced)
cost
of
commuting
through
encouraged
carpooling
and
accessibility
to
ride
information.

87|

P a g e

REVENUE
STREAMS

Because
the
system
relies
on
?suggested?
donations
to
the
driver
(average
of
$0.13/mile
based
on
existing
systems)
to
cover
gas
and
car
maintenance,
actual
revenue
and
ROI
is
difficult
to
determine.
This
system
should
provide
a
small
percentage
of
the
donation
to
go
towards
the
network
(20%),
with
additional
sources
coming
from
advertising
or
promotional
deals.
Additional
partnerships
with
retail
vendors
(i.e.
LivingSocial,
StubHub,
Groupon)
could
be
utilized
to
entice
new
users
to
the
network.
Tax
incentives
for
commuters
may
encourage
more
riders
to
pay
for
the
system?s
use,
as
well
as
full
cost
recovery
for
drivers
through
a
mechanized
(or
cash-­?based)
payment
plan.
Most
of
the
revenue
is
returned
in
the
sale
of
the
ridesharing
software
platform
and
coordination
of
technical
guidance
and
support.

There
are
potential
opportunities
available
for
rideshare
networks
and
independent
island
taxi
companies
to
partner
?
Uber
has
already
reached
out
to
work
with
taxi
and
limo
drivers
to
provide
their
service.
This
is
a
good
way
to
reduce
animosity
and
resentment
between
the
two
services,
fueled
by
increased
competition.
However,
partnership
in
this
area
may
be
slow,
as
taxi
regulations
are
complex
and
based
on
entirely
different
business
models
developed
pre-­?smartphone.

VENDOR
OPTIONS
FOR
AN
ISLAND
P3-­?BASED
NETWORK

Ultimately
we
recommend
that
a
public
agency
partners
with
a
private
?product
vendor?
to
develop
a
finance
stream
and
organizational
structure
for
individualized
ridesharing
network.
We
have
completed
a
preliminary
analysis
on
the
following
vendors
for
their
suitability
for
a
public-­?private
partnership
to
develop
a
ridesharing
network
on
Hawai`i
Island.

THE
TRAPEZE
GROUP

The
Trapeze
Group
claims
to
be
?a
company
at
the
forefront
of
tackling
global
transportation
challenges
through
technologically
integrated
solutions.?
The
company
provides
end-­?to-­?end
service
programs
from
product
innovation
and
development
to
solutions
delivery
and
technical
support.
Most
recently,
they
have
acquired
the
assets
of
GreenRide,
a
suite
of
sustainable
ridesharing
solutions
specializing
in
mobility
management,
demand
response
and
software
expertise.
Trapeze
offers
the
most
comprehensive
rideshare
management
online
solutions
package
to
date
(through
RidePro).

195

The
capabilities
of
RidePro
include:

!

Automated
ridematching,
both
individually
or
in
batches

!

Integration
with
social
media
enabled
for
individual
networking

!

Web
site
support
to
brand
a
public
interface
for
the
ridesharing
service

Maintenance
of
contact
with
registrants
while
tracking
program
success
through
email
and
surveys

!

Integrated
vanpool
matching
software

88|

P a g e

THE
RIDESHARE
COMPANY

The
Rideshare
Company
is
a
nonprofit
organization
offering
interactive
demand-­?oriented
ridematching
solutions
and
consulting,
marketing
strategies
and
fleet
vehicular
provisions
for
ridesharing
and
vanpooling
programs.
This
company
focuses
on
employees
and
brings
together
federal
tax
incentives,
mass
transit
options,
commuter
incentives,
and
user
tracking
tools
to
deliver
commuter
services
uniquely
tailored
to
fit
each
business.
Originating
in
the
New
York/New
England
region,
the
company
has
expanded
their
consulting
services
nationally
to
Washington,
DC,
Chicago
and
Los
Angeles
while
procuring
a
General
Services
Administration
contract
that
allows
them
to
provide
support
directly
to
federal
government
agencies
as
well.
The
company
places
high
emphasis
on
outreach,
marketing,
and
education
from
conception
to
implementation
in
order
to
educate
employers,
commuters,
state
governments
and
NGOs
while
helping
them
optimize
commuting
alternatives.

196

CUBIC
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS

This
global
corporation
provides
integrated
revenue
management
solutions
within
the
mass
transit
industry.
They
assist
with
the
design
and
delivery
of
technological
services
that
provides
the
business
model
and
fare
payment
infrastructure
(gates,
ticketing,
smart
card
readers,
back
end
or
central
systems
for
processing
and
reporting
revenue).
In
addition,
the
company
assumes
responsibility
in
providing
customer
and
software
support
as
well
as
operations
services.
The
company
has
delivered
over
400
projects
in
40
major
markets
on
five
continents.

197

A
UNIVERSITY
RIDESHARE
NETWORK

We
recommend
investigating
the
possibility
of
a
ridesharing
pilot
project
at
the
University
of
Hawai`i
at
Hilo
to
understand
the
benefits
and
barriers
of
this
kind
of
network
on
Hawai`i
Island.

University
of
Hawai'i
at
Hilo
Campus

(Source:
hilo.hawaii.edu)

89|

P a g e

The
success
of
ridesharing
networks
in
attracting
university
students
depends
upon
the
proportion
of
automobile-­?reliant
commuters
at
the
school
and
the
relative
travel
distances
between
their
residences
and
campus.
Further
commuting
distances
from
campus
have
traditionally
been
favorable
for
ridesharing,
with
larger
universities
often
proving
more
successful
at
attracting
new
users
to
rideshare
than
their
smaller,
more
campus-­?focused
counterparts.

198

The
University
of
Washington
in
Seattle
(UW)
campus,
for
example,
registered

2,336
users
through
Zimride/Lyft
on
its
launch
date
?
the
largest
in
Zimride
history.
Over
six
weeks
later,
there
were
4,039
users
(those
who
had
logged
onto
the
site).
Zimride
usually
averages
1,500-­?2,000
campus
users
within
the
first
year
of
its
launch.

199

The
success
of
the
UW

rideshare
network
may
be
attributed
to
its
strategic
communications
campaign,
based
on
results
from
student
behavioral
studies
and
focus
group
analyses.
Furthermore,
only
13%
of
undergraduate
students
live
on
campus,
which
indicates
a
strong
demand
for
residence-­?to-­?campus
service.

200

Commuter
service
emails
and
messages
to
those
holding
parking
permits

yielded
statistically
significant
influence
on
user
registration.
It
is
unlikely
that
out-­?of-­?state
university
students
at
Hilo
would
rely
on
ridesharing
to
get
from
the
local
airport
to
campus,
as
the
distance
spans
just
four
miles.
However,
out
of
the
4,100
undergraduate
students,
only
26%
live
on
campus,
so
rideshare
commuting
to
campus
might
be
an
option
depending
on
user
preferences
?
this
number
does
not
even
take
into
account
the
university
faculty
and
staff
that
may
live
further
from
campus
and
find
carpooling
an
attractive
option
in
getting
to
campus.

201

Marketing
and
branding
should
account
for
a
substantial
portion
of
accumulating
a
critical
mass
of
users
essential
for
network
functionality.
Characteristics
of
past
marketing
campaigns
have
included
extensive
emails
to
target
audiences
(social
clubs,
parking
permit
holders),
commuter-­?targeted
tabling
in
student
activities
areas
and
parking
lots
to
disseminate
information,
poster
advertisements
and
added
incentives
(raffles
for
tablets
and
iPods,
promotional
deals
with
social
media
vendors
like
LivingSocial
and
StubHub).
Once
the
network
has
attracted
a
broad
base
of
consistent
users,
coordinators
need
to
leverage
their
authority
to
incorporate
larger
campus
groups
and
organizations
in
order
to
expand
credibility
and
personal
outreach
for
the
network.
Engagement
from
orientation
is
also
recommended
in
order
to
familiarize
students,
while
fostering
a
sense
of
community
and
security
by
emphasizing
personal
referencing
and
user
recommendations/ratings.

The
rideshare
industry
is
highly
competitive
and
as
result
is
reluctant
to
disclose
information
about
their
revenues
and
costs.
We
were
able
to
collect
limited
data
from
public
records
and
by
contacting
the
companies
themselves.
For
example,
Zimride
(purchased
in
2013
by
Lyft)
typically
charges
approximately
$10,000/year
to
large
universities
for
rideshare
partnerships
-­?
major
costs
will
be
realized
in
the
development
phase,
where
initial
technical
and
marketing
capital
is
required
to
get
the
ridesharing
platform
up
and
running.

202

Students
who
are
actively
engaged
in
both
environmental
stewardship
and
campus-­?wide
social
groups
have
traditionally
initiated
project
development.
We
connected
with
members
of
UH-­?Hilo?s
Students
for
Sustainability
Committee,
who
do
not
currently
work
on
commuting
issues,
but
were
interested
in
engaging
in
them
in
the
future.

90|

P a g e

If
the
County
wishes
to
pursue
partnership
with
the
University
of
Hawai`i
-­?Hilo
as
a
pilot
project,
information
gathered
from
previous
college
networks
suggest
that
UH
should
develop
its
own
uniquely
tailored
and
marketed
rideshare
network.
It
is
important
for
the
university
to
plan
for
the
ability
to
change
providers
in
the
future
without
losing
all
prior
market
development;
ridesharing
platforms
are
still
in
their
infancy
and
are
still
subject
to
market
fluctuations
and
acquisitions
by
larger
companies
who
may
wish
to
diversify
and
re-­?prioritize
their
capabilities.
Significant
student
involvement
in
the
partnership
process
has
also
been
a
recurring
theme
of
past
implementation
projects
at
the
university
level.

203

UNIVERSITY
RIDESHARE
COMMUTING
PATTERNS
?
A
CURSORY
GLANCE

Figure
8-­?2,
below,
indicates
the
success
of
ridesharing
at
attracting
both
short-­?
and
long-­?distance
commuters
at
the
University
of
Washington?s
Seattle
campus
between
2010
and
2014.
There
have
been
a
total
of
3,704
cumulative
ride
posts
(approximately
8%
of
all
campus
students
and
faculty)
since
December
13,
2010,
with
13
average
ride
matches
per
post.

Figure
8-­?2

The
numbers
reflect
that
the
dense
urban
student
population
has
utilized
the
network
for
a
substantial
majority
of
short
distances
rather
than
long
distances;
26.6%
of
commutes
were
between
0-­?5
miles,
while
29%
of
commutes
were
5-­?10
miles,
22.4%
of
commutes
were
10-­?20
miles,
and
22%
of
commutes
were
longer
than
20
miles.
Despite
the
more
substantial
gains
in
cost-­?effectiveness
from
further
driving
distances,
it
appears
that
density
and
a
higher
number
of
potential
commuters
are
a
more
significant
factor
behind
rideshare
usage
than
distance
savings.
This
implies
that
the
University
of
Hawai`i
at
Hilo
could
potentially
benefit
from
a
rideshare
network
despite
short
distances
from
town
to
campus.

204

27%

30%

23%

15%

1%
2%
1%

1%

Rideshare
Commugng
Parerns
at

University
of
Washington

0-­?5
miles

5-­?10
miles

10-­?20
miles

20-­?60
miles

60-­?100
miles

100-­?160
miles

160-­?220
miles

220+
miles

91|

P a g e

COMPARISON
OF
RIDESHARE
OPTIONS

Table
8-­?1
provides
an
overview
of
the
major
decision
points
for
moving
forward
with
either
an
existing
rideshare
network,
a
newly
developed
network
or
a
vanpool
network.

Table
8-­?1:
Rideshare
Options
for
Hawai'i
Island

Criteria

Third
Party
Existing

Rideshare
Network
(TNC)

Third
Party
Unique
Rideshare
Network

(P3)

Vanpool
Network

Cost
for
Average

User

Optimal
driver
donation
has
been
determined
to
be
$0.13/mile
with
the

company
retaining
a
20%
fee.

Optimal
driver
donation
has
been

determined
to
be
$0.13/mile.

$141-­?164
per
person/month
(estimate
specific
to

Vanpool
Hawai'i)

205

Capital
Needed

Average
cost
to
rollout

service
at
the
university
level
is
approximately
$10,000/year.

206

Trapeze
Group
RidePro
ridematching
software
cost
a
total
of
$208,
929;
the
Riverside
County
Transportation

Commission
paid
$81,553,
while
the
national
Mobile
Source
Air
Pollution
Reduction
Review
Committee
(MSRC)
covered
$127,376,
through
the
state
of

California?s
discretionary
funds.

207

The
average
cost
for
a
single

carpool
in
Hawai`i
is
$1,300/
month
for
a
7-­?person
van.

208

JobJet
Iowa
was
initially
funded
by
$146,000.

209

Service
Conven-­?ience

Optimal

Optimal

The
van
is
assigned
starting
and
ending
nodes
at
the
same
time
every
working
day.
It
lacks
the
flexibility
of

the
rideshare
networks,
but
maintains
reliability.

Ease
of

Admini-­?stration

TNCs
are
already
in
existence
and
easily
transferable
to
new
markets.
However,
a

regional
transit
authority
must
be
available
to
coordinate
and
regulate
the
TNC.

Development
of
a
P3
is
time-­?intensive
and
requires
technical
consulting
to
adopt
a
suitable
model.
However,
longer
term
stability
could
make

securing
funding
from
external
sources
easier.
Private
vendors
assume
the
administrative
role,
relieving
the
public
agency
of
much
of
the
burden.

There
is
no
current
MPO/TMA
for
the
county.
The
statewide
vanpool

program
was
dropped
in
late
2010,
so
the
commuter
network
is
largely
privately-­?managed.
(Vride)

Availabil-­?ity
of
Techno-­?logy

GPS
user
technology
is
readily
available;
the
ridematching
platform
is
provided
by
TNC.

Ridematching
platform
and
technical
support
and
GPS
database
provided
by
the
company.

each
unique
situation,
but
could
either
be
provided
by
the
company
or
coordinating
agency.

Van
fleet
provided
either
by
third
party
provider
or
an

employer.
Database
both
online
and
via
hard
copy.

92|

P a g e

USER
COST
COMPARISONS

Figure
8-­?3
illustrates
the
monthly
user
costs
associated
with
ridesharing
and
compares
them
to
the
cost
of
commuting
alone
and
commuting
via
public
transit.
The
chart
also
compares
cost
recovery
for
drivers
based
on
how
many
passengers
are
served
in
the
carpool
and
distance
traveled
daily
(short
city
commutes
of
10
miles
and
long
intra-­?island
commute
of
160
miles).
The
economic
returns
from
long-­?distance
commuting
are
much
more
substantial
in
ridesharing
than
for
shorter
distances.
Although
the
driver
pays
an
average
of
$640/month
for
long-­?distance
commuting
on
the
island,
that
cost
is
cut
almost
in
half
by
taking
on
one
additional
passenger
($332.80
returned
to
the
driver),
and
fully
recovered
with
additional
profit
by
taking
on
two
or
three
passengers
(making
$25.60
or
$358.40
per
month
respectively).
For
shorter
distances,
the
gains
are
more
modest
?
the
$40/month
average
cost
of
gasoline
for
a
single
commuter
is
recovered
with
the
driver
earning
an
additional
$1.60
for
two
more
riders
and
$22.40
for
three
more
riders.
(See
Appendix
G
for
more
details
on
these
calculations.)
Despite
these
findings,
the
pilot
project
completed
at
the
University
of
Washington
clearly
indicated
that
short-­?distance
(<20
miles)
commutes
were
the
most
heavily
frequented
routes
of
rideshare
users,
indicating
that
the
potential
of
a
loyal
ridership
community
is
more
contingent
upon
a
dense
user
base
in
which
to
draw,
rather
than
relying
on
only
long-­?distance
commuters
that
live
in
more
isolated
neighborhoods.

Figure
8-­?3

$(400.00)

$(200.00)

$-­?

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

City
Commute

Cross-­?Island
Commute

Mo

nthly

Cost

of

Travel

Distance
of
Commute

Carpool
Economics

Commute
Alone

Carpool
-­?
2
people

Carpool
-­?
3
people

Carpool
-­?
4
people

Carpool
Rider

Public
Transit

93|

P a g e

FEASIBILITY
ANALYSIS

THIRD
PARTY
EXISTING
RIDESHARE
NETWORKS
(TNC)

ADVANTAGES

Existing
Rideshare
Networks
provide
quick
entry
into
the
marketplace.
These
heavily
frequented
and
tested
networks
already
have
substantial
technical
expertise
in
developing
efficient
demand-­?responsive
ridematching
software.
The
networks
also
bring
experience
and
guidance
in
community
engagement
and
marketing,
making
them
effective
communicators
with
the
practiced
ability
to
promote
new
ridership
and
attract
a
wide
variety
of
clientele
across
a
social
media
landscape.
Technical
support
is
centralized
and
readily
available,
as
is
the
capacity
for
organizational
partnerships
?
Lyft,
Zimride
and
UberX
in
particular
have
demonstrated
a
knack
for
partnering
with
universities,
corporations
or
independent
taxi
providers
in
order
to
broaden
their
customer
bases
while
cultivating
mutually
beneficial
relationships
with
existing
companies.

Service
convenience
(as
included
as
a
key
performance
criterion)
refers
to
the
flexibility,
certainty,
responsiveness,
and
reliability
of
the
transportation
system.
Rideshare
networks
have
near
optimal
service
convenience
due
to
the
fact
that
the
technology
utilized
is
tailored
to
drivers
picking
up
passengers
along
routes
to
be
established
ahead
of
time.
They
have
proven
to
be
used
in
cities
as
both
commuting
practices
as
well
as
established
connection
points
between
the
workplace,
larger
transit
hubs,
and
home.

Carpool
savings
to
the
user
(driver
or
rider)
naturally
accrue
over
time,
growing
increasingly
large
depending
upon
number
of
users
carpooling
together.
Carpool
savings
are
generally
much
more
substantial
for
longer
commuting
trips.
As
noted
in
User
Cost
Comparisons
(above),
drivers
can
recover
their
monthly
spending
on
gasoline
with
just
two
more
passengers,
and
can
potentially
earn
over
$350
per
month
with
three
additional
passengers.
Although
the
average
cost
to
the
passenger
in
said
carpool
may
round
out
to
about
$416
per
month,
this
is
still
lower
than
the
$640/month
standard
commuter
fare
for
the
160-­?mile
round
trip
from
Hilo
to
Kona.

Finally,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
section
entitled
?Characteristics
of
Hawai`i
County
Commuters,?
residents
of
Hawai`i
Island
are
already
more
prone
to
carpooling
practices
than
their
mainland
counterparts.
If
these
ridesharing
networks
are
able
to
promote
ridesharing
as
a
community-­?strengthening
culturally
cohesive
tool
to
network
and
support
fellow
Hawaiians,
the
companies
may
have
a
much
more
meaningful
and
long-­?lasting
impact.
The
greatest
chance
for
potential
consumer
impact
on
the
island
remains
in
long-­?distance
commuting
from
residential
clusters
in
Ocean
View-­?South
Kona,
Puna,
Hilo,
and
Waimea
to
work
destinations
along
the
Kohala
Coast
and
Kona.

94|

P a g e

DISADVANTAGES

These
ridesharing
enterprises
have
recently
become
very
popular
and
have
begun
to
expand
rapidly;
this
expansion,
however,
has
been
limited
to
populous
urban
centers
and
their
surrounding
suburbs.
The
ideal
geographical
arrangement
for
proven
rideshare
success
has
been
a
populous
metropolitan
setting;
sprawling
enough
from
the
city
center
for
substantial
rider
savings
from
carpool
to
be
realized,
yet
dense
enough
to
ensure
a
healthy
supply
of
daily
commuters.
It
is
unclear
whether
the
introduction
of
a
rideshare
network
would
attract
a
consistent
customer
base
on
Hawai`i
Island
given
the
region?s
mostly
rural,
geographically
dispersed
population.
Until
this
point,
the
success
of
existing
rideshare
networks
have
hinged
not
only
upon
attractive
cost
savings
to
the
user,
but
also
upon
the
capacity
for
the
existing
infrastructure
to
support
the
network
(both
social
and
technological)
?
while
mobile
technological
capabilities
and
Wi-­?Fi
coverage
seem
fairly
comprehensive
on
the
island,
population
density
for
ridesharing
commutes
may
not
support
regular
ridership
on
a
consistent
basis.
This,
coupled
with
the
networks?
greater
proven
cost-­?effectiveness
at
a
longer-­?distance
scale,
may
be
a
moderate
complication
to
island-­?wide
success.

Another
potential
area
of
concern
lies
in
the
administrative
oversight
and
regulation
of
these
entities.
In
California,
taxi
providers
resentful
of
the
competitive
pricing
of
rideshare
transportation
network
companies
(TNCs)
lobbied
against
them,
while
investors
remained
uncertain
of
whether
financial
backing
was
in
their
best
interest
due
to
increasing
economic
discord.
It
was
not
until
the
California
Public
Utility
Commission
(PUC)
officially
recognized
TNCs
as
a
separate
and
legitimate
entity
that
ridership
and
investment
in
the
networks
rapidly
expanded
?
this
essentially
served
as
the
PUC?s
assumption
of
responsibility
for
regulation
and
coordination
of
the
networks.

Other
than
the
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency
(already
focused
on
maintaining
the
Hele-­?On
system),
there
is
no
clear
transportation
management
authority,
regional
planning
organization,
or
council
agency
with
the
resources
necessary
to
oversee
ridesharing
expansion.
Because
the
existing
companies
are
emerging
in
a
competitive
market,
many
of
the
already
established
TNCs
are
in
open
competition
both
among
themselves
and
with
other
industries
(taxi,
vanpool,
transit),
pay
for
themselves,
and
rely
more
on
private
investments
and
venture
capital
to
keep
expanding
new
features
and
services.
This
will
require
more
burdensome
regulation
by
an
administrative
authority
going
into
the
future
(as
opposed
to
a
singular
P3
network
established
in
conjunction
with
an
existing
public
agency).
Establishment
of
a
regional
Transportation
Management
Authority
that
integrates
mass
transit
with
vanpool,
rideshare,
and
taxi
services
could
be
costly
?
the
national
average
annual
budget
for
a
TMA
is
priced
at
$200,000,
generally
from
state
appropriations.

210

However,
the
County
is
already
geographically

constrained,
as
an
island
while
most
of
the
TNC
infrastructure
is
already
web-­?based,
making
the
current
lack
of
a
coordinated
regional
authority
a
minor
issue.
Expansion
could
be
rolled
out
in
conjunction
with
Oahu?s
UberX
launch,
and
is
not
foreseen
to
require
heavy-­?handed
technological
regulation
or
an
extremely
large
professional
staff
presence
on
Hawai`i
Island.
Implementation
could
potentially
be
achieved
with
existing
oversight
from
the
state?s
Public

95|

P a g e

Utility
Commission
or
through
the
Statewide
Transportation
Planning
Office?s
Rural
Transit
Assistance
Program,
though
the
latter
is
probably
unlikely.

TARGETED
USER
GROUPS

Due
to
the
unlikelihood
of
last-­?mile
travel
for
Hawai`i
Island
ridesharing
(lack
of
cost-­?effectiveness
of
short-­?term
travel),
general
reliance
on
normal
business
hours
for
a
large
commuter
working
base
and
relatively
higher
cost
than
mass
transit,
any
rideshare
network
introduced
on
the
Island
will
likely
support
middle-­?class
professionals
or
company
employees
within
a
corporate
partnership
with
a
transportation
network
company.
Ridesharing
is
unlikely
to
pull
ridership
away
from
mass
transit
due
to
the
higher
price
of
travel,
and
seems
to
be
geared
more
towards
riders
that
would
otherwise
drive
themselves
(i.e.
those
preferring
the
intimacy,
flexibility
and
luxury
afforded
by
automobile
travel).
The
regularity
of
mass
transit
with
regard
to
operating
hours
and
predetermined
bus
routes
ensures
continued
ridership
by
the
same
commuters
and
students
who
currently
rely
on
Hele-­?On.
Ridesharing
networks
will
probably
not
gain
much
traction
for
lower-­?income
families
reliant
on
service
sector
shift
labor
due
to
these
discrepancies.

INCENTIVES
AND
DISINCENTIVES

Federal
subsidies
for
?alternative
commuters?
like
the
Commuter
Tax
Benefit
Program,
the
Guaranteed
Ride
Home
Program
(GRHP),
and
the
Job
Access
Reverse
Commute
(JARC)
program
are
without
an
agency
or
representative
body
that
can
efficiently
allocate
these
incentives
to
commuters
and
businesses
on
Hawai`i
Island.
The
onus
is
on
the
partnering
employer
or
enterprising
individual
to
get
in
contact
with
the
representative
governing
body
to
apply
for
tax
credits
or
subsidies
in
exchange
for
provision
of
ridesharing
commuter
reliance.

The
difficulties
of
securing
these
federal
subsidies,
combined
with
the
lack
of
regional
authority
necessary
to
push
for
application
of
these
incentives
and
make
programs
known
to
commuters,
indicates
that
they
have
not
been
strong
enough
to
encourage
ridesharing
practices
on
the
Island.
Additionally,
it
may
be
very
expensive
to
implement
the
Guaranteed
Ride
Home
Program
due
to
the
lengthy
distances
between
work
and
residence
for
many
islanders,
and
most
federal
funding
is
limited
to
congestion-­?prone
service
areas
or
targeted
towards
disabled
populations.

This
is
not
to
say
that
tax
benefits
and
commuter
subsidies
cannot
significantly
impact
driving
habits
in
the
future
?
if
state-­?directed
legislation
is
any
indication,
Hawai`i
might
be
seeing
a
significant
push
in
rideshare
and
carpool
efforts
in
the
near
future
as
potential
energy
savings
are
realized
(see
Policies
in
Existence
?
Carsharing
Vehicle
Surcharge
Tax).
Furthermore,
if
the
County
works
to
support
regional
transportation
oversight
beyond
existing
mass
transit,
it
would
create
a
more
influential
governing
body
in
which
to
communicate
the
needs
of
its
citizens
to
the
state
in
order
to
apply
for
subsidies.

96|

P a g e

NEXT
STEPS
FOR
EXPANSION
OF
AN
EXISTING
RIDESHARE
NETWORK

Although
the
largest
uncertainty
remains
in
whether
an
existing
and
tested
ridesharing
service
can
attract
adequate
ridership
given
sprawling
population
dispersal,
a
formal
governing
entity
must
be
established
and
federally
recognized
in
order
for
the
full
range
of
capital
investment
and
commuter
incentive
structures
to
be
developed
and
cultivated.

A
final
criterion
to
be
considered
when
comparing
options
for
expansion
is
social
equity,
measuring
both
attractiveness
and
accessibility
to
the
general
public.
While
vanpool
systems
are
utilized
for
commuters,
the
availability
of
technology
must
be
assessed
so
that
residents
have
the
option
to
rideshare.
We
suggest
that
the
County
develop
a
population
survey
to
gauge
the
potential
popularity
of
the
networks
before
implementation
is
considered.
Such
a
survey
should
reach
across
a
broad
range
of
residents,
from
commuters
to
public
officials,
as
well
as
employers
and
families.
Such
a
survey
could
also
be
developed
by
University
of
Hawai`i
-­?Hilo
students
in
an
effort
to
measure
how
students
and
faculty
might
respond
to
ridesharing
as
a
means
of
alternative
transportation
in
commuting
to
and
from
campus.

Looking
into
the
future,
it
would
be
in
Hawai`i
County?s
best
interest
to
either
adopt
a
type
of
regional
transportation
management
agency,
planning
organization
or
otherwise
coordinate
priorities
between
its
Energy,
Planning
&
Economic
Development,
Research
&
Development,
Mass
Transit
departments
and
large-­?business
employers
to
form
a
more
cohesive
approach
to
targeting
sustainable
transportation
solutions.
Currently,
most
ridesharing
companies
(TNCs)
are
regulated
by
state
public
utility
commissions;
to
date,
regulation
typically
entails
ensuring
that
ridesharing
networks
are
registered
and
approved,
that
rides
facilitated
between
passengers
and
private
drivers
utilize
the
drivers?
own
vehicles,
and
that
the
companies
maintain
an
insurance
policy
providing
per-­?incident
minimum
coverage
standards.
The
regulating
entity
might
also
seek
to
cultivate
partnerships
between
local
taxi
companies
and
TNCs
to
avoid
open
hostility
between
competing
businesses
while
allowing
for
incorporation
of
available
network
technology.

If
the
County
does
decide
to
go
forward
with
an
existing
rideshare
network,
a
Request
for
Proposal
should
be
solicited
to
all
existing
national
rideshare
network
vendors.
This
would
encourage
bidding
by
successful
companies,
allowing
the
networks
to
determine
whether
they
might
benefit
from
expansion
into
unique
territory
beyond
the
purview
of
traditional
systems.
If
an
ensuing
partnership
with
the
local
university
or
with
larger
corporations
is
desired,
Zimride
(recently
sold
to
Lyft)
is
recommended
for
its
expertise
in
coordinating
these
partnerships
at
over
100
universities
and
50
company
offices.

211

INDIVIDUAL
PUBLIC-­?PRIVATE
(P3)
RIDESHARE
NETWORK

ADVANTAGES

Transit-­?related
public-­?private
partnerships
(P3)
generally
provide
benefits
in
the
form
of
risk
transfer
(the
private
software
company
assumes
liability
of
service)
while
maintaining
a
proven

97|

P a g e

track
record
of
reliability
and
technical
support.
Instead
of
wasting
time
and
resources
on
outsourcing
and
bidding
to
existing
ridesharing
companies
(TNCs)
that
may
not
see
the
demand
as
adequate
for
expanding
their
network
to
the
Island,
selecting
a
solutions-­?based
vendor
may
provide
accelerated
project
delivery
through
a
fixed
contract
that
forgoes
the
typical
procurement
process.
The
vendors
are
also
familiar
with
ways
to
streamline
operating
costs
through
proven
cash
collection
techniques,
while
helping
the
transit
agency
in
maximizing
new
sources
of
revenue.

Generally,
most
regional
public
officials
have
favored
P3s
in
an
era
where
federal,
state,
and
city
resources
are
increasingly
scarce.
Initially
expensive
contract
costs
could
relieve
transit
agencies
of
administrative
and
financial
burdens,
while
it
would
be
in
the
best
interest
of
such
vendors
to
streamline
operations
to
keep
attracting
riders
while
keeping
maintenance
costs
low.
This
could
prove
to
be
very
attractive
for
Hawai`i
County,
where
the
Mass
Transit
Agency
is
already
stretched
thin
in
terms
of
financial
and
labor
resources
for
oversight
of
the
Hele-­?On
system.
It
would
also
be
highly
unlikely
for
federal
or
state
funding
to
be
available
for
a
coordinated
county
TMA
in
the
future
without
clear
assurance
that
the
program
will
pay
for
itself.
Additionally,
a
privately
operated
system
unique
to
Hawai`i
County
would
provide
optimal
reliability
and
flexibility
in
service,
rather
than
a
one-­?size-­?fits-­?all
pre-­?existing
rideshare
model
that
has
only
demonstrated
successful
results
in
metropolitan
regions.
There
is
more
sensitivity
to
branding
and
targeting
selected
groups,
and
private
companies
can
work
with
the
partnering
public
agency
to
help
find
external
sources
to
supplement
project
compensation
fees.
More
importantly,
there
is
less
sensitivity
to
potential
company
turnovers,
acquisitions,
or
changes
in
company
structure
and
ownership.
Where
TNCs
might
graft
their
existing
network
onto
the
Island,
a
unique
P3
working
in
tandem
with
the
County
would
require
less
oversight
and
foster
a
better
relationship
with
existing
residents
and
businesses.

A
P3
system
requires
much
more
capital
and
more
initial
input
from
county
officials
?
however,
the
benefits
of
such
a
system
will
be
realized
in
the
form
of
a
more
responsive
and
flexible
rideshare
network
with
a
greater
capacity
for
coordinating
solutions
to
meet
shifting
transportation
demands
into
the
future.
Compared
to
establishment
of
an
existing
rideshare
network,
a
P3
structure
could
ultimately
provide
greater
long-­?term
stability
for
the
island,
with
less
dependence
on
uncertain
future
public
funding.

DISADVANTAGES

The
major
distinction
in
choosing
between
implementation
of
an
existing
rideshare
service
or
entering
into
a
contract
with
a
private
vendor
for
an
individualized
network
lies
in
the
administrative
oversight.
While
a
P3
system
might
be
lauded
for
its
greater
assumed
role
in
managing
the
network
almost
in
its
entirety,
the
implication
is
that
the
public
good
(in
this
case,
transit)
has
been
transferred
to
a
private
entity.
This
could
mean
that
the
public
becomes
subject
to
the
company?s
efforts
to
keep
business
costs
low.
The
company
could
raise
utility
rates
and
fees
over
a
period
of
time
(for
example,
fare-­?raising
of
parking
meters
and
private
toll
bridges
in
Chicago
via
Cubic
Transportation
Systems

212

),
or
similarly
adjust
costs
based
on

98|

P a g e

perceived
market
risks.
Additionally,
there
are
certain
risks
that
private
partners
will
not
assume
-­?
including
changes
in
regional
law
and
interference
or
approval
by
third-­?party
government
entities
?
which
could
accordingly
raise
user
costs.

The
initial
startup
costs
of
operation
for
a
P3
network
are
also
much
more
expensive.
Because
each
system
is
uniquely
tailored
to
the
geographical
or
infrastructure
constraints
of
the
project
at
hand,
the
coordinating
public
agency
must
pay
for
consultants
to
visit
the
island
to
make
recommendations
and
decide
exactly
how
an
optimal
rideshare
network
should
be
implemented
(instead
of
relying
on
a
pre-­?scripted
format).

TARGETED
USER
GROUPS

Ridesharing
networks
on
Hawai`i
Island
are
speculated
to
attract
the
same
demographic
of
ridership
despite
organizational
structure,
as
user
costs
generated
(at
least
in
the
beginning)
would
be
relatively
similar.
P3
networks
are
expected
to
rely
on
middle-­?class
commuting
professionals
or
commuting
university
students
and
faculty
for
a
majority
of
daily
ridership.

INCENTIVES
AND
DISINCENTIVES

Again,
many
of
the
incentives
offered
for
carpooling
provide
the
same
commuter
and
employer
benefits
for
any
rideshare
network
regardless
of
structure.

There
is
one
possible
innovation
that
may
prove
more
feasible
given
a
unique
third-­?party
rideshare
system
over
a
publicly
administered
expansion
of
a
more
rigid
existing
network.
A
former
project
consultant
and
current
University
of
Michigan
Sustainable
Systems
graduate
student
originally
came
to
us
with
an
idea
that
could
provide
an
incentive
for
passengers
to
recruit
each
other
for
higher-­?occupancy
carpooling.
It
applies
the
Game
Theory
as
well
as
our
User
Cost
findings
for
carpool
?
adding
passengers
to
a
carpool
bring
down
costs
for
the
driver
until
he
breaks
even,
at
which
point
adding
additional
riders
would
increase
his
own
profit.
While
this
provides
an
incentive
for
the
driver
to
find
people
to
take
to
work,
the
realized
savings
from
a
passenger
standpoint
may
not
be
as
apparent
(though
they
do
exist).
Once
the
carpool
exceeds
the
break-­?even
point
and
a
surplus
is
reached,
some
of
the
profit
could
be
returned
to
the
passengers
in
the
form
of
cost
subsidization,
or
simply
a
monthly
payment.
As
more
passengers
are
added
to
the
carpool,
the
subsidy
recovered
by
the
riders
increases
with
the
profit.
Although
the
concept
was
originally
prescribed
for
public
bus
systems
in
India,
the
value
might
prove
more
beneficial
for
a
private
individualized
rideshare
network
with
the
flexibility
to
both
implement
its
own
system
and
manage
itself.

213

This
is
especially
pertinent

given
the
fact
that
most
public
buses
operate
at
a
loss
without
government
subsidization.

NEXT
STEPS
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
A
P3-­?AGENCY
PARTNERED
RIDESHARE
NETWORK

While
it
is
not
of
paramount
importance
that
a
fully
functioning
agency
be
established
to
oversee,
regulate
and
administer
a
P3
ridesharing
entity,
there
should
be
a
specified
staff
person
(or
persons)
at
the
regional
agency
level
to
be
tasked
with
coordinating
the
day-­?to-­?day

99|

P a g e

operations
of
the
network.
This
person
would
work
in
accordance
with
the
mutually
agreed
upon
contract
binding
said
agency
with
the
private
vendor.
This
staff
member
should
also
be
charged
with
implementing
and
monitoring
any
additional
policies
enacted
by
the
federal,
state
or
local
public
agencies
that
may
have
an
impact
ridesharing
practices.
Again,
any
overseeing
entity
might
want
to
focus
attention
on
creating
lasting,
mutually
beneficial
relationships
between
said
ridesharing
service
and
local
taxi
companies
in
order
to
ease
hostility
and
realize
full
potential
of
technology-­?
and
customer-­?
sharing.

If
the
County
wishes
to
proceed
with
implementation
of
an
individualized
rideshare
network,
this
direction
is
relatively
straightforward.
There
are
a
number
of
transportation
technology
vendors
with
a
proven
track
record
with
significant
investor
backing
?
contacting
a
sales
representative
from
one
of
these
companies
to
obtain
a
quote
would
be
the
next
logical
step.

ISLAND-­?WIDE
PRIVATE
VANPOOL
NETWORK

ADVANTAGES

Private
vanpooling
(with
vans
provided
by
a
third
party)
has
been
the
preferred
network
within
the
state
due
to
lack
of
prioritization
by
the
Hawai`i
Department
of
Transportation,
as
evidenced
by
past
budgetary
cuts.
The
private
VRide
system
is
already
in
implementation,
and
its
mapping
tools
and
online
surveys
produce
overviews
of
employee
commuting
patterns
in
order
to
establish
travel
nodes.
The
island
is
ideal
in
geography
for
vanpool
commutes,
where
many
large
employers
(e.g.
resorts)
draw
from
concentrated
residential
clusters
(e.g.
Hilo)
and
can
pick
up
commuters
along
the
way
northward
(via
Waimea)
and
southward
(via
Puna,
Ocean
View)
towards
Kona
and
the
Kohala
coast.
The
existing
network
is
entirely
private
?
Vride
both
provides
the
vehicles
and
oversees
the
online
registration
database
and
mapping
tools,
while
members
sign
up
individually
to
drive
and
are
reimbursed
for
fuel
through
?seat
fees?
by
passengers.

214

The
organizational
structure
and
technological
infrastructure
is
already
in
place
?
commuters
can
create
online
accounts
to
immediately
begin
registering
for
existing
vanpools
on
the
Island,
or
even
start
their
own
vanpools.
It
is
a
federally
recognized
method
of
commuting,
and
requires
no
additional
governmental
oversight.
Vanpooling
can
save
long-­?distance
commuters
up
to
$4,000
a
year
(or
more)
in
travel
costs
otherwise
incurred
through
individual
travel
(assuming
average
monthly
single-­?commuter
cost
of
$640
from
Hilo
to
Kona).
Currently
the
system
is
not
close
to
reaching
full
capacity,
with
most
commuters
relying
on
mass
transit
or
individual
vehicles
for
daily
travel.
Higher
carpooling
capacities
into
the
future
(as
opposed
to
traditional
rideshare)
mean
greater
cost
savings
for
the
users.

Employer
vanpools
within
the
county
are
non-­?existent,
but
offer
tax
benefits
to
employers
and
employees
as
well
as
the
additional
savings
in
cost
per
mile.

100|

P a g e

DISADVANTAGES

While
the
network
saves
even
more
costs
for
riders
and
implementation
has
already
been
achieved,
it
only
accounts
for
an
insignificant
fraction
of
daily
travel
for
islanders.
The
driver
is
only
reimbursed
up
until
the
point
where
his
fuel
costs
are
covered,
and
no
more
?
while
this
is
still
an
incentive
for
the
driver
to
find
willing
vanpoolers,
it
still
may
not
be
worth
the
effort
of
receiving
training
and
driving
a
large
van
back
and
forth
across
the
island
five
times
a
week.
Ridesharing
services,
in
comparison,
offer
potential
profits
to
the
driver
for
his
time
and
services.

The
vanpool
network
still
lacks
the
flexibility
of
mobile
ridesharing
and
ridematching.
Routes,
though
optimized
to
meet
large
concentrations
of
commuters,
are
still
pre-­?determined
and
depart
and
arrive
at
specific
nodes.
Often
times,
riders
in
a
vanpool
might
still
find
themselves
having
to
drive
just
to
reach
the
starting
node,
which
may
be
more
than
ten
miles
away
for
those
living
on
the
interior
of
the
island
away
from
the
hubs
in
Hilo
or
Kona.
Furthermore,
irregular
shift
hours
between
service-­?sector
workers
may
hinder
the
effectiveness
of
filling
employer-­?provided
or
VRide
vans;
if
there
is
too
much
variation
in
the
traveling
times
of
workers
within
a
single
resort
area,
pre-­?determined
vanpool
route
times
may
do
little
to
meet
the
scheduling
demands
of
the
workers.

If
the
vans
do
reach
full
capacity
and
increase
ridership,
it
could
also
divert
riders
from
existing
mass
transit,
which
has
traditionally
been
subsidized
with
county
dollars
to
ensure
that
passengers
do
not
have
to
pay
more
than
a
few
dollars.

TARGETED
USER
GROUPS

To
date,
the
few
vans
already
transporting
passengers
on
the
island
serve
the
handicapped
and
elderly
in
rural,
isolated
communities
?
these
vans
transport
residents
to
city
centers
(mostly
within
Hilo)
for
shopping
and
health
appointments.
A
more
comprehensive
vanpool
system
would
ideally
focus
on
transporting
commuters
and
service-­?sector
employees
working
consistent
schedules
to
and
from
a
starting
node
in
Hilo
to
a
final
destination
point
along
the
Kohala
Coast,
possibly
picking
up
riders
along
the
way.
While
the
cheaper
user
costs
of
vanpool
make
it
a
more
attractive
option
for
lower-­?income
groups
(around
$150/person
each
month
for
a
7-­?9
person
van),

215

the
cheaper
cost
of
vanpooling
compared
to
ridesharing
indicates
that
this

service
may
be
better
suited
for
lower-­?income
workers
who
have
difficulty
meeting
scheduled
bus
routes,
or
cannot
afford
the
luxury
of
driving
their
own
vehicle
or
even
ridesharing.

INCENTIVES
AND
DISINCENTIVES

There
is
already
paratransit
available
on
the
island
managed
by
the
Hawai`i
County
Economic
Opportunity
Council
(HCEOC)
through
a
federal
contract
with
the
Department
of
Transportation.
However,
though
they
have
applied
for
vehicle
funding
in
the
past
through
the
Job
Access
Reverse
Commute
program
(JARC),
the
state
has
been
stalling
in
allocating
the
vehicles
to
the
County
for
usage.
Currently,
this
program
only
provides
rides
for
the
elderly
and
handicapped,
although
the
HCEOC
is
waiting
on
a
single
van
that
will
transport
ALL
commuters
from
Ocean

101|

P a g e

View
to
Kona
for
work
purposes.
Such
difficulties
with
the
reimbursement
process
suggest
that
although
applications
for
funding
through
federal
incentives
are
granted,
the
state?s
stalled
implementation
reflects
a
lack
of
prioritization
when
it
comes
to
the
island?s
transportation
needs.
Because
of
the
difficulties
associated
with
acquiring
government
funding,
it
is
unlikely
that
public
vanpool
incentives
are
likely
to
induce
new
ridership,
or
even
play
a
major
role
in
vanpool
development
for
some
time.
These
issues
may
exacerbate
if
the
County
is
to
rely
on
federal
subsidies
for
future
vanpool
programs
?
in
2011,
the
Hawai`i
Department
of
Transportation
cut
vanpool
subsidies
entirely
after
17
years,
immediately
raising
user
fees
and
eventually
forcing
Vanpool
Hawai`i
to
sub-­?contract
out
to
a
private
vendor
(VRide)
to
head
the
program.

216

Such
difficulties
with
implementing
incentive
programs
also
suggest
the
need
for
a

stronger
and
more
cohesive
regional
voice
to
represent
county
interests,
reflecting
the
need
for
a
planning
organization,
authority
or
council
to
facilitate
and
expedite
grant
proposals
for
new
projects.

The
VRide
system,
while
allowing
for
riders
to
pay
the
driver
to
reimburse
for
the
cost
of
gas,
does
not
allow
the
driver
to
generate
a
profit
of
his
own.
Without
adjusting
this
payment
mechanism,
there
is
little
incentive
for
the
driver
to
find
more
carpoolers
beyond
meeting
fuel
coverage
costs
?
a
mileage
or
time-­?oriented
payment
plan
might
be
more
suitable
in
allowing
for
the
driver
to
earn
extra
money
for
his
efforts
in
getting
trained
and
driving
the
van
daily.

NEXT
STEPS
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
A
PRIVATE
VANPOOL
NETWORK

There
is
already
a
state
vanpool
program
(VRide),
which
offers
its
services
to
Hawai`i
County,
though
it
clearly
has
not
been
attainable
for
most
of
the
island?s
residents.
To
remedy
this
while
presenting
the
network
as
a
cost-­?effective
solution
for
many
commuters,
marketing
and
outreach
campaigns
should
be
expanded
via
radio
and
community
newspapers.
Forums
could
be
held,
accessible
to
both
employers
and
employees,
in
which
businesses
can
share
employee
travel
information
in
order
to
gauge
the
effectiveness
of
partnering
together
to
provide
vanpool
services.
Employers
should
also
be
made
more
aware
of
the
Commuter
Tax
Benefits
available
to
the
company
should
they
opt
with
providing
vanpool
services
to
their
employees.
At
the
state
level,
the
Department
of
Transportation
could
establish
additional
tax
credits
for
employers
who
provide
their
own
vans
(Maryland,
Georgia,
Minnesota).

If
vanpooling
exposure
and
ridership
increases
on
the
island,
the
county
should
establish
a
point
of
contact
within
the
state
VRide
office
in
order
to
bring
in
more
vans.

Following
our
preliminary
research
on
Hawai`i
Island
and
its
public
transit
system,
the
team
developed
two
hypotheses
for
reducing
fossil
fuel
usage.
The
following
hypotheses
guided
our
onsite,
background
and
best
practices
research:

1. Technological
and
communication
upgrades
to
the
current
public
transportation
system

will
increase
ridership
and
reduce
personal
vehicle
use.

2. The
introduction
of
car-­?share
and
ride-­?share
services
will
reduce
the
number
of
personal

vehicles
used.

Metrics
were
subsequently
selected
in
order
to
test
the
efficacy
of
determined
hypotheses
on
reduction
of
overall
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
(VMT)
and
reduced
gasoline
consumption.

STAGE
II:
(APRIL
?
MAY
2013)

Review
of
Hawai`i
Island
Transportation
Infrastructure

In
order
to
draft
recommendations
that
are
achievable
and
reflect
the
values
of
the
community
and
all
the
stakeholders,
the
team
completed
further
research
to
build
a
basic
understanding
of
the
local
culture
and
stakeholder,
the
policy-­?making
landscape,
the
available
financial
resources,
the
current
transportation
system,
and
the
economics
of
the
island.

STAGE
III:
(JUNE
?
JULY
2013)

Comparative
Studies
of
Existing
Regional
Transportation
Systems

The
team
performed
a
literature
review
to
help
broaden
our
knowledge
of
existing
transportation
systems
and
identify
potential
solutions
through
improvements
to
existing
infrastructure
or
introduction
of
new
practices.

STAGE
IV:
(JULY
?
AUGUST
2013)

Onsite
Research
and
Meetings

The
team
traveled
to
Hawai`i
Island
to
engage
with
project
stakeholders
directly.
This
trip
ensured
that
we
got
some
sense
of
the
wants,
needs,
goals
and
objectives
of
those
using
and
involved
in
the
public
transit
system
and
energy
sustainability
on
the
island.
(See
Appendix
B
for
a
comprehensive
list
of
all
project
participants
and
contributors.)

104|

P a g e

STAGE
V:
(SEPTEMBER
2013
?
FEBRUARY
2014)

Data
Analysis
and
Final
Report

This
process
will
require
synthesizing
Stage
II
and
III
research,
as
well
as
taking
into
account
the
concerns
and
attitudes
of
the
commuters
and
employers
(after
meeting
with
key
stakeholders)
identified
in
Stage
IV.
We
have
prepared
this
report
with
our
analysis
and
recommendations.

PROJECT
HYPOTHESES

1. Improvements
in
the
current
public
transportation
system
will
increase
ridership
and

reduce
personal
vehicle
use.

Tactics:

a. Introduction
of
vanpools

i. Will
maximize
efficient
occupancy
of
vehicles

ii. Allows
for
more
frequent
trips

b. Redesign
routes

i. More
direct
and
?express?
trips

ii. Clearly
defined
stops

iii. Optimized
times
and
peak
hours

c. Improve
communication

i. Major
upgrade
and
redesign
of
web
page:
user-­?friendly,
interactive
and

v. Web
and
mobile
phone
application
with
GPS
tracking
of
buses
and
vans

2. The
introduction
of
car-­?share
and
ride-­?share
services
will
reduce
the
number
of
personal

vehicles
used.

Tactics:

a. Engage
the
business
community

i. Introduce
rideshare
or
carpooling
programs
with
employees

ii. Implement
car-­?share
services
in
existing
rental
car
agencies

iii. Introduce
rideshare
service
companies

b. Develop
coordination
and
communication
tools

i. Ride-­?share
software

ii. Web-­?based
apps

iii.

Analog
options

105|

P a g e

APPENDIX
B:
SOURCES
OF
INFORMATION

Our
Master?s
Project
team
conducted
interviews
with
a
number
of
local
stakeholders
during
our
August
2013
trip
to
Hawai`i
Island.
These
interviews
helped
us
understand
the
culture,
political,
economic,
and
social
dynamics
present
on
Hawai`i
Island.
We
focused
on
methods
and
patterns
of
transit
on
the
island
and
connected
with
interviewees
about
the
professional
work
in
the
transportation
sector,
as
well
as
their
personal
experiences
getting
around
the
island.
The
team
spoke
with
the
following
individuals:

? Tina
Clothier
?
Peoples
Advocacy
for
Trails
Hawai`i

? Elizabeth
Cole
?
The
Kohala
Center

? Kyle
Datta
?
The
Ulupono
Initiative

? Laura
Dierenfield
?
Queen
Liliuokalani
Trust

? Alex
Frost
?
University
of
Hawai`i
Manoa

? Tiffany
Kai
?
Hawai`i
County
Mass
Transit
Agency

? Jay
Kimura
?
Hawai`i
County
Economic
Opportunity
Council

? Wally
Lau
?
Office
of
the
Mayor

? Ray
L?Heureux
?
Hawai`i
State
Department
of
Education

? Margaret
Masunaga
?
Hawai`i
County
Department
of
Planning

? Laverne
Omori
?
Hawai`i
County
Department
of
Research
and
Development

? Will
Rolston
?
Hawai`i
County
Energy
Coordinator

? Sharon
Sakai
?
Kohala
Coast
Resort
Association

? Jonathan
Wong
?
University
of
Hawai`i
Hilo

? Miles
Yoshioka
-­?
Hawai`i
Island
Chamber
of
Commerce

We?d
also
like
to
acknowledge
and
give
thanks
to
the
following
transportation
experts
for
their
support,
guidance,
and
advice
in
helping
us
complete
this
report:

NOTE:
We
spoke
with
the
above
listed,
but
this
does
not
constitute
any
endorsement
by
them
or
the
agencies,
businesses
and
organizations
they
represent.

107|

P a g e

APPENDIX
C:
COUNTY
OF
HAWAI`I
FINANCIAL
DATA

Table
9-­?1

Account
Description

FY
2010-­?11

Actuals

FY
2011-­?12

Estimate

FY
2012-­?13

Estimate

FY
2013-­?14

Estimate

FY
2014-­?15

Estimate

Mass
Transit
-­?
S&W

329,217.68

$

359,700.00

$

344,553.00

$

359,700.00

$

359,700.00

$

Mass
Transit
-­?
OCE

2,741,181.00

$

846,799.00

$

902,199.00

$

1,447,699.00

$

1,302,199.00

$

Mass
Transit
-­?
Equipt

199,999.31

$

300,000.00

$

200,000.00

$

200,000.00

$

200,000.00

$

Taxicab
Investigation

29,249.82

$

29,000.00

$

29,000.00

$

29,000.00

$

29,000.00

$

Rural
Transit
Assist
Pgm

10,863.39

$

20,000.00

$

10,500.00

$

10,500.00

$

10,500.00

$

Sec
5309
Capital
Grant

36,230.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Sec
5309
Capital
Grt
05-­?06

1,279,707.01

$

1,500,000.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Job
Access
&
Reverse
Commute

312,716.00

$

-­?

$

62,305.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Sec
5311
Non-­?Urbanized
Formula

21,305.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Sec
5309
Captial
Grt
FY12-­?13

-­?

$

-­?

$

1,000,000.00

$

1,000,000.00

$

1,000,000.00

$

New
Freedom
Funds

-­?

$

-­?

$

52,255.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Fed
Transit
Admin

973,632.61

$

900,000.00

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

-­?

$

Fed
Transit
Admin
FY12-­?13

-­?

$

-­?

$

700,000.00

$

700,000.00

$

700,000.00

$

General
Fund
Expenditures

5,934,101.82

$

3,955,499.00

$

3,300,812.00

$

3,746,899.00

$

3,601,399.00

$

Account
Description

FY
2010-­?11

Actuals

FY
2011-­?12

Estimate

FY
2012-­?13

Estimate

FY
2013-­?14

Estimate

FY
2014-­?15

Estimate

Hwy
Mass
Transit
OCE

943,892.00

$

4,044,593.00

$

4,845,250.00

$

4,345,250.00

$

4,445,250.00

$

Highway
Fund
Expenditures

943,892.00

$

4,044,593.00

$

4,845,250.00

$

4,345,250.00

$

4,445,250.00

$

FY
2010
-­?11
Revenues

General
Fund

Highway
Fund

HWYS:
PUBIC
TRANSPORTATIONMass
Transportation
Agency

3,300,812.00

$

4,845,250.00

$

Public
Transportation
Revenues

8,146,062.00

$

Source:
County
of
Hawai'I
Operating
Budget
FY
2012-­?2013

County
of
Hawai'i
Mass
Transit
Expenditures
and
Revenue

General
Fund

Highway
Fund
(020)

108|

P a g e

APPENDIX
D:
CREATING
THE
MAPS

Data
sources
and
contents,
data
processing
approaches
and
map
making
techniques
are
explained
in
the
following
appendix.

Data
sources
and
contents

Bus
Routes

Bus
route
data
is
from
the
County
of
Hawai`i
in
Shapefile
format.
Each
bus
route
is
a
polyline
with
its
name.

Recreation

Recreation
data
is
from
the
County
of
Hawai`i
in
Shapefile
format.
Recreation
sites
are
from
three
different
layers
according
to
its
level:
federal
level
recreation
sites
such
as
Hawai`i
Volcanoes
National
Park;
state
level
recreation
sites
such
as
Kekaha
Kai
State
Park;
county
level
recreation
sites
such
as
Keokea
Beach
Park.

Work
hubs

Employers?
addresses
are
found
online
and
then
geocoded
into
Shapefile.

Census

We
obtained
spatial
census
data
from
the
U.S.
Census
Bureau
in
the
form
of
TIGER/Line®
Shapefiles
pre-­?joined
with
Demographic
Data,

217

where
Hawai`i
Island
is
divided
into
8,888

census
blocks.
Each
census
block
has
its
own
population
data.

Spatial
data
processing

Recreation
data
processing

We
merged
all
of
the
179
recreation
sites
into
one
file
and
calculated
its
density
using
Kernel
Density
tool
in
ArcGIS
10.
This
tool
calculates
the
density
of
features
in
a
neighborhood
around
those
features.
In
other
words,
it
smoothes
out
the
information
represented
by
a
collection
of
points
in
a
way
that
is
more
visually
pleasing
and
understandable
because
it
is
often
easier
to
look
at
a
raster
with
a
stretched
color
ramp
than
it
is
to
look
at
blobs
of
points,
especially
when
the
points
cover
up
large
areas
of
the
map.

218

It
also
shows
areas
where
POI
(Points
of
Interest,

?recreation
sites?
in
this
case)
are
clustered
(i.e.
have
a
high
density).

Work
hubs
data
processing

First,
we
put
all
of
the
employer?s
addresses
that
were
found
into
a
Microsoft
Excel
table
with
the
four
columns:
?name,?
?address,?
?city,?
and
?state.?
Then,
we
performed
geocoding
in
ArcGIS
10.
Geocoding
is
the
process
of
transforming
street
addresses
and/or
zip
codes
(like
440
Church
St.,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105)
into
associated
geographic
coordinates
(often
expressed
as

109|

P a g e

latitude
and
longitude,
like
42.277658,-­?83.736595).
Finally,
we
calculated
the
kernel
density
based
on
the
geocoding
results.

Census
data
processing

We
calculated
population
density
in
each
census
block
by
dividing
population
by
its
corresponding
census
block
area.

Data
visualization

There
are
a
total
of
19
bus
routes
and
we
presented
them
in
different
colors.
Some
of
them
are
overlapped
with
each
other,
which
makes
it
hard
to
display.
As
a
result,
the
overlapped
routes
were
offset
slightly
in
order
to
be
able
to
see
all
of
them.

Density
of
recreation
sites,
employers
and
population
are
presented
on
the
maps
as
well.
Individual
federal
recreation
sites
are
also
presented,
and
road
centerlines
and
airports
are
displayed
as
reference
data.

110|

P a g e

APPENDIX
E:
TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT

Table
9-­?2:
Existing
Transportation
Management
Associations

219

LOCATION

SPONSORING
AGENCY

TYPE
OF
AGENCY

CONTACT
INFO

WEBSITE

Atlanta,
GA

Commuter
Connections,
Atlanta
Regional
Commission

MPO,
Rideshare

87-­?RIDEFIND

www.commuteconnections.com

Albany,
NY

Capital
District
Commuter
Register

Transit
Agency,
Rideshare

518-­?458-­?2164

www.commuter-­?register.org

Augusta,
ME

Go
Augusta

Rideshare

800-­?280-­?RIDE

www.goaugusta.org

Birmingham,
AL

CommuteSmart
Rideshare

Rideshare

800-­?826-­?RIDE

www.commutesmartrideshare.com

Contra
Costa
County,
CA

Contra
Costa
CountyCommute
Alternative
Network

Public
consortium

800-­?215-­?3035

www.traks.org/incentive/guarantee/incentive.html

Denver,
CO

Ride
Arrangers

Rideshare,
COG

303-­?455-­?1000

www.drcog.org/ridearrangers/

Detroit,
MI

Southeast
Michigan
Council
of
Governments

COG

313-­?961-­?4266

www.semcog.org/index.html

Houston,
TX
METROVan

Rideshare

713-­?224-­?RIDE

www.hou-­?metro.harris.tx.us/METVAN.HTM

Kansas
City,
MO

Mid-­?America
Regional
Council

Rideshare,
COG

816-­?842-­?RIDE

Rideshare.marc.org

Las
Vegas,
NV

Regional
Transportation
Commission

MPO

702-­?228-­?RIDE

www.catride.com/catmatch

111|

P a g e

Long
Island,
NY

Long
Island
Ridesharing

Rideshare

631-­?737-­?CARS

www.737cars.com

Miami,
FL

South
Florida
Commuter
Services

Rideshare

973-­?267-­?7600

www.transpotions.org

Twin
Cities,
MN

Metro
Council

MPO,
Transit
Agency

651-­?602-­?1602

www.metrocommuterservices.org/index.asp

Morris
County,
NJ

TransOptions

Rideshare

973-­?267-­?7600

www.transoptions.org

Nashville,
TN

Regional
Transportation
Authority

MPO,
Transit
Agency

615-­?862-­?8833

www.rta-­?ride.org/ridehome/ridepolicy/htm

New
Hampshire

New
Hampshire
DOT

State
DOT

800-­?462-­?8707

www.state.nh.us/dot/rideshare

New
Haven,
CT

Rideworks

Rideshare

800-­?ALL-­?RIDE

www.rideworks.com

New
York,
NY

Commuter
Link

Rideshare

718-­?886-­?1343

www.commuterlink.com

Phoenix,
AZ
Valley
Metro

Transit
Agency

602-­?262-­?7242

www.valleymetro.maricopa.gov

Portland,
ME

RideShare

Rideshare

800-­?280-­?RIDE

www.ridesharemaine.org

Rhode
Island

RI
Public
Transit
Authority

Transit
Agency

888-­?88-­?RIPTA

www.ripta.com

San
Diego,
CA

San
Diego
Commute

Rideshare,
COG

800-­?COMMUTE

www.sdcommute.com/van_pool.html

112|

P a g e

San
Francisco
Bay
Area,
CA

RIDES
for
Bay
Area
Commuters

Rideshare

800-­?755-­?POOL

www.rides.org

San
Mateo
County,
CA

Peninsula
Traffic
Congestion
Relief
Alliance

Public-­?private
Assoc.

650-­?994-­?7924

www.commute.org

Seattle,
WA
Metro
Rideshare

Operations

County

206-­?625-­?4500

Transit.metrokc.gov/van_car/vancar.html

Stamford,
CT

Metropool

Rideshare

800-­?346-­?3743

www.metropool.com

Tallahassee,
FL

Commuter
Services
of
North
Florida

Rideshare

973-­?267-­?7600

Tmi.cob.fsu.edu/commute

Tampa,
FL

Bay
Area
Commuter
Services

Rideshare

813-­?282-­?8200

www.tampabayrideshare.org

Vermont

Vermont
Public
Transit
Authority

Transit
Agency

800-­?685-­?RIDE

www.vpta.net

Vermont
&
New
Hampshire

Upper
Valley
Rideshare

Rideshare,
COG

802-­?745-­?RIDE

www.uppervalleyrideshare.com//uvrs.grh.html

Washington,
DC

Commuter
Connections

MPO

800-­?745-­?RIDE

www.mwcog.org/commuter

Windsor,
CT
The
RideShare

Company

Rideshare

800-­?972-­?3279

www.rideshare.com

113|

P a g e

Figure
9-­?1

220

114|

P a g e

APPENDIX
F:
EXISTING
MOBILE
RIDESHARE
PROVIDERS

Table
9-­?3:
Existing
Mobile
Rideshare
Providers

221

Provider

Location

Services
Provided

Sustainabilit

y

Investors

Additional
Notes

Carma

(car.ma)

HQ
in
Cork,
Ireland;
Serves
Ireland,
Norway,

U.S.
(Austin,
D.C.,
San
Francisco)

Real-­?time
shared
car
trips;
automatic
payment
from
rider

based
on
distance
traveled

SOS
funded
$10M
over
several
years,
each

time
investing
larger
amounts

Venture
capital
funding
from

SOSVentures

In
October
2011,

began
a
real-­?time
ridesharing
pilot
in
Arlington
and
released
a
real-­?

time
information
and
management
system
for
vanpool
operation
rolled
out
by
VPSI

Carpooling.com

Founded
in
Germany.
Serving
40
countries,

mostly
European

Detailed
user
profiles,
with
info
about
where
they
want
to
meet
and
what
they
are
willing
to
pay;
multimodal

platform
also
integrating
bus,
train,
plane

Yes,
been
around
for
15
years
in

Europe

Earlybird
Venture
Capital,

Daimler

Over
5
million

registered
users,
50
million
people
transported
since
launch.
1.3
million

people
carpooling
each
month.
1
million
downloads
of
mobile
apps

Hailo
(hailocab.com)

Started
in
London
and
also
serves
selected
cities
in
North
America,

Europe
and
Asia

Flags
licensed
taxis
through
mobile
devices
and
pays
automatically
by
registered
card
on

allowing
private
car-­?owners
to
rent
out
vehicles
via
an
online
interface.
Car
owners
can
set
their
own

prices,
and
the
company
takes
25%.

Unknown.
Onstar
partnership

with
GM
cancelled
in
Sept.
2013
to
focus
on

long
duration
car
rentals

Received
$19M

in
funding
from
GM
Ventures,
Google
Ventures
and

others

Focusing
more
on
driver
eligibility
requirements

RideScout
(ridescout.com)

An
Austin
startup
which
later
expanded
to
DC

RideScout
is
a
free

mobile
app
that
provides
real-­?time
information
on
all
available
ride
options,

including
both
rail,
taxis,
bikeshare,
car2go,
Sidecar
and
more

Unknown.
Working
on

online
marketing
ad
co-­?marketing

with
the
carsharing
service
Car2Go

Funded
by
employees'
friends
and
family
as
well

as
angel
investors

RideScout
is
a

mobile
app
that
aggregates
all
of
the
ride
options
available
to
a
user.
It
is
not
a
service

provider,
instead
a
clearinghouse
of
sorts

Sidecar

San
Francisco,
CA

Sidecar's
smartphone
app
matches
people
in
their
own
car
with
people
nearby
for

shared
rides

Yes,
it's
in
over
60
metro
regions
in

the
country

Investors
include
Lightspeed
Ventures,
Google

Ventures
and
others

All
drivers
are
pre-­?

vetted
for
safety,
all
rides
are
GPS
tracked
and
everyone
who

rides
is
covered
by
$1
million
dollar
insurance
policy

Uber

Started
in
San

Francisco
and
is
currently
rolling
out
UberX
rideshare
network
in
most

major
U.S.
cities
and
Honolulu

Independent

ridesharing
network
with
a
mobile
app
which
connects
passengers
with
drivers
of
vehicles
for

ridesharing
and
pickup
services

Yes,
founded
in
2009
and
is
in
over
50
cities

worldwide

Lowercase

Capital,
First
Round
Capital,
Benchmark,
Goldman
Sachs,
Menlo,

Google
Ventures

116|

P a g e

APPENDIX
G:
THE
ECONOMICS
OF
CARPOOLING

Table
9-­?4:
Long
Distance
Intra-­?Island
Commuting

Table
9-­?5:
Short
Distance
City
Commuting

Costs

Revenue

Total

Costs

Revenue

Total

Commute
Alone

$32.00

($32.00)

$640.00

($640.00)

Carpool
-­?
2
people

Driver

$32.00

$16.64

($15.36)

$640.00

$332.80

($307.20)

Carpool
Service

$4.16

$4.16

$83.20

$83.20

Carpool
-­?
3
people

Driver

$32.00

$33.28

$1.28

$640.00

$665.60

$25.60

Carpool
Service

$8.32

$8.32

$166.40

$166.40

Carpool
-­?
4
people

Driver

$32.00

$49.92

$17.92

$640.00

$998.40

$358.40

Carpool
Service

$12.48

$12.48

$249.60

$249.60

Carpool
Riders

$20.80

($20.80)

$416.00

($416.00)

Public
Transit

$60.00

($60.00)

AssumptionsCost
of
gas:

$4.00/gallon

Fuel
efficiency:

20
miles/gallon

Distance
traveled:

160
miles
(roundtrip
-­?
Hilo
to
Kona)

Gallons
used:

Distance/Efficiency
=
8
gallons

Days
traveled:

20
days
in
a
month

Rider
fee:

$0.13/mile
paid
to
drive

Carpool
service
fee:

20%
of
the
fee
paid
by
the
rider

Daily

Monthly

Costs

Revenue

Total

Costs

Revenue

Total

Commute
Alone

$2.00

($2.00)

$56.00

($56.00)

Carpool
-­?
2
people

Driver

$2.00

$1.04

($0.96)

$56.00

$29.12

($26.88)

Carpool
Service

$0.26

$0.26

$7.28

$7.28

Carpool
-­?
3
people

Driver

$2.00

$2.08

$0.08

$56.00

$58.24

$2.24

Carpool
Service

$0.52

$0.52

$14.56

$14.56

Carpool
-­?
4
people

Driver

$2.00

$3.12

$1.12

$56.00

$87.36

$31.36

Carpool
Service

$0.78

$0.78

$21.84

$21.84

Carpool
Riders

$1.30

($1.30)

$36.40

($36.40)

Public
Transit

$60.00

($60.00)

AssumptionsCost
of
gas:

$4.00/gallon

Fuel
efficiency:

20
miles/gallon

Distance
traveled:

10
miles
(intra-­?Hilo
or
Kona)

Gallons
used:

Distance/Efficiency
=
0.5
gallons

Days
traveled:

20
days
(work
commute)
+
8
days
(non-­?regular
travel)

Rider
fee:

$0.13/mile
paid
to
drive

Carpool
service
fee:

20%
of
the
fee
paid
by
the
rider

Daily

Monthly

117|

P a g e

APPENDIX
H:
UNIVERSTY
OF
MICHIGAN
TEAM
BIOGRAPHIES

Jonas
Epstein
is
a
2

nd

-­?year
MS
student
in
the
Environmental
Policy
&
Planning
track
in
the
School

of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment
and
the
University
of
Michigan.
He
originally
hails
from
Maryland
and
graduated
from
Bucknell
University
in
2011
majoring
in
Economics
and
Environmental
Studies.
Jonas
has
past
work
experience
in
ecosystem
services
valuation
for
the
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation
(working
under
the
Assistant
Secretary
for
Transportation
Policy),
environmental
cost-­?benefit
analyses,
and
has
completed
extensive
research
analyzing
economic
impacts
resulting
from
agricultural
conservation,
stormwater
management,
and
wastewater
treatment
initiatives
in
the
Chesapeake
Bay
watershed.
He
would
like
to
hone
his
policy
skills
in
order
to
develop
a
lifelong
career
in
land
use/urban
planning
and
natural
resource
management.

Maite
Madrazo
is
a
2

nd

year
dual-­?degree
MS/MBA
student
at
the
University
of
Michigan
School

of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment
and
the
Stephen
M.
Ross
School
of
Business.
She
is
in
the
Sustainable
Systems
track.
Maite
is
from
Mexico
City
and
has
a
Bachelor?s
in
Mechanical
and
Electrical
Engineering.
Previous
to
coming
to
the
University
of
Michigan,
she
worked
in
renewable
energy
project
development
with
Potencia
Industrial
S.A.,
where
she
coordinated
a
20MW
wind
power
project
in
northern
Baja
California,
Mexico;
oversaw
small-­?wind
turbine
manufacturing,
sales
and
projects;
and
started
the
development
of
a
mini-­?hydroelectric
plant.
Maite
is
passionate
about
creating
social
and
environmental
impact
by
transitioning
to
clean
and
renewable
energy
sources
and
improving
energy
efficiency.

Trevor
McManamon
is
a2nd
year
dual
MS
student
between
the
University
of
Michigan?s
School
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment
and
the
School
of
Engineering,
studying
Sustainable
Systems
and
Energy
Systems
Engineering.
He
grew
up
in
San
Jose,
CA
and
majored
in
Chemistry
and
minored
in
Earth
Sciences
at
Boston
University,
graduating
in
December
2011.
Trevor
has
internship
experience
at
the
environmental
research
consultancy
AltaTerra
Research
Network
and
at
the
concentrated
solar
power
startup
Combined
Power.
Trevor
is
passionate
about
contributing
towards
climate
change
mitigation
and
is
hoping
to
enter
the
renewable
energy
sector
upon
graduation
in
May
of
2015.

Daphne
Medina
is
a
3

rd

year
student
at
the
University
of
Michigan?s
Erb
Institute
for
Sustainable

Global
Enterprise,
working
toward
a
dual
degree
MS/MBA
at
the
School
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment
and
the
Stephen
M.
Ross
School
of
Business.
She
joined
the
program
after
four
years
working
at
Environmental
Defense
Fund
on
green
business
practices
in
the
Corporate
Partnerships
Program
and
on
catch
shares
fishery
management
in
the
Oceans
Program.
Daphne
is
currently
pursing
a
career
in
corporate
social
responsibility
focused
on
incorporating
sustainability
into
all
aspects
of
corporate
strategy
in
order
to
create
a
greener
and
more
equitable
global
economy.
Hailing
from
Boston,
she
attended
Boston
University,
graduating
with
BA
in
Political
Science

118|

P a g e

Xiaofei
Wen
is
a
2

nd

year
MS
student
in
the
Environmental
Informatics
track
in
the
School
of

Natural
Resources
and
Environment
and
the
University
of
Michigan.
He
is
from
China
and
majored
in
Remote
Sensing
Science
and
Technology
at
Wuhan
University,
graduating
in
June
2012.
Xiaofei
has
research
experience
of
information
extraction
using
remote
sensing
imagery
and
GIS
modeling.
Xiaofei
is
passionate
about
applying
his
expertise
of
spatial
analysis
to
support
the
decision
making
of
environmental
&
urban
planning
challenges
in
his
future
career.

119|

P a g e

APPENDIX
I:
MASTERS
PROJECT
CLIENT

From

http://www.kohalacenter.org

:

?The
Kohala
Center
is
an
independent,
not-­?for-­?profit,
community-­?based
center
for
research,
conservation,
and
education.
The
Kohala
Center
was
established
in
direct
response
to
the
request
of
island
residents
and
island
leaders
to
create
greater
educational
and
employment
opportunities
by
caring
for?and
celebrating?Hawai?i
Island?s
natural
and
cultural
landscape.

The
sheer
diversity
of
Hawai?i
Island?s
ecosystems
and
climate
zones
makes
the
island
a
model
of
the
planet.
Furthermore,
the
island?s
root
culture
is
embedded
in
knowledge
of
the
natural
world
and
excels
in
natural
resource
management
practices.
In
this
remarkable
local
context,
the
island
becomes
a
model
for
the
planet
whenever
island
communities
successfully
address
contemporary
challenges
at
the
intersection
of
human
and
natural
systems.

By
focusing
on
the
needs
of
island
residents
and
the
research
interests
of
our
university
and
agency
partners,
three
core
areas
of
work
have
emerged:
energy
self-­?reliance,
food
self-­?reliance,
and
ecosystem
health.
These
areas
of
work
involve
basic
and
applied
research,
policy
research,
conservation
and
restoration
initiatives,
public
outreach
and
education
?
all
carried
out
through
local,
regional,
national,
and
international
partnerships.
Through
these
partnerships
and
by
recognizing
that
we
work
in
a
model
environment,
we
help
communities
on
the
island,
in
the
Pacific,
and
around
the
world
thrive?ecologically,
economically,
culturally,
and
socially.

We
also
support
the
development
of
island
scholars,
so
that
those
from
Hawai?i
can
lead
educational
and
research
institutions
in
Hawai?i
and
around
the
world.
Toward
this
end,
we
created
the
Mellon-­?Hawai?i
Doctoral
and
Postdoctoral
Fellowship
Program
in
collaboration
with
The
Andrew
W.
Mellon
Foundation
and
Kamehameha
Schools.

Our
mission:
to
respectfully
engage
the
Island
of
Hawai?i
as
a
living
model
for
humanity.

120|

P a g e

Our
vision:
a
state
of
pono,
in
which
individuals
realize
their
potential,
contributing
their
very
best
to
one
another,
to
the
community,
and
to
the
??ina
(the
land)
itself,
in
exchange
for
a
meaningful
and
happy
life.
?